linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/9] virtio: new API for addition of buffers, scatterlist changes

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

Date:	Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:19:11 +1030
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong@...fujitsu.com>, asias@...hat.com,
	mst@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] virtio: new API for addition of buffers, scatterlist changes

Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> writes:
>> virtio_ring: virtqueue_add_sgs, to add multiple sgs.
>> 
>> virtio_scsi and virtio_blk can really use these, to avoid their current
>> hack of copying the whole sg array.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Ruty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> 
>
> It's much better than the other prototype you had posted, but I still
> dislike this...  You pay for additional counting of scatterlists when
> the caller knows the number of buffers

Yes, but I like the API simplicity.  We could use an array of sg_table,
which is what you have in virtio_scsi anyway, but I doubt it's
measurable on benchmarks.

> and the nested loops aren't free, either.

I think they'll win over multiple function calls :)

But modulo devastating benchmarks, this wins.  Because the three-part
API is really, really ugly.  It *looks* like a generic "start - work
... work - end" API, but it's not.  Because you need to declare exactly
what you're doing in virtqueue_start_buf!

And that's OK, because noone wants a generic API like that.

> > +	sg_unmark_end(sg + out + in);
> > +	if (out && in)
> > +		sg_unmark_end(sg + out);
>
> What's this second sg_unmark_end block for?  Doesn't it access after the
> end of sg?  If you wanted it to be sg_mark_end, that must be:
> 
>   if (out)
> 	  sg_mark_end(sg + out - 1);
>   if (in)
> 	  sg_mark_end(sg + out + in - 1);
> 
>   with a corresponding unmark afterwards.

Thanks, I fixed that after I actually tested it :)

But as we clean them every time, we don't need to unmark:

	/* Workaround until callers pass well-formed sgs. */
	for (i = 0; i < out + in; i++)
		sg_unmark_end(sg + i);

	sg_mark_end(sg + out + in - 1);
	if (out && in)
		sg_mark_end(sg + out - 1);

	return virtqueue_add_sgs(_vq, sgs, out ? 1 : 0, in ? 1 : 0, data, gfp);

This is a workaround until all callers fixed / replaced, of course.

> Another problem is that you cannot pass "truncated" scatterlists.  You
> must ensure there is an end marker on the last item.  I'm not sure if
> the kernel ensures that, given that for_each_sg takes explicitly the
> number of scatterlist elements; and it is not as trivial as
> "sg_mark_end(foo + nsg - 1);" if the upper layers hand you a chained
> scatterlist.

Makes you wonder why they have end markers at all.  But yes, the block
layer does the right thing with end markers in blk_bio_map_sg(), which
seems to carry through.

Cheers,
Rusty.
PS.  Patchbomb coming, lightly tested.
--
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/