linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] avoid endless loops in lib/swiotlb.c

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 16 Mar 2008 20:55:03 +0900
From:	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
To:	jbeulich@...ell.com
Cc:	tomof@....org, fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] avoid endless loops in lib/swiotlb.c

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:18:09 +0000
"Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@...ell.com> wrote:

> >> - if the number of slots requested fits into a swiotlb segment, but is
> >>   too large for the part of a segment which remains after considering
> >>   offset_slots
> >
> >Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. Can you give me an actual example
> >numbers that leads to that?
> 
> For one part, it can happen if nslots > max_slots (which is a driver
> error [except for the case above where max_slots erroneously got set
> to zero], but shouldn't lead to a silent hang, especially as it didn't do so
> before).
> 
> For another part, requesting e.g. a transfer of 128k with a segment
> mask of 128k when the IOTLB isn't aligned to a 128k boundary would
> again lead to a silent hang, as would various cases where the request
> exceeds the segment size (and the segment mask is sufficiently small).
> Neither of these cases got stuck in the old code.
> 
> Beyond that, maybe I was too quick in concluding this could happen
> even in less unusual cases - I think I didn't pay close enough attention
> to the fact that offset_slots + index gets masked by max_slots - 1.
> But even then I think the code looks simpler/safer and is smaller with
> the adjusted logic.

I don't think that the old code hits the problems (endless loops or
silent hang) that you explained, but I agree that the patch made the
code simpler a bit.

Thanks,
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/