netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] 9p/trans_virtio: support larger msize values

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:   Mon, 22 Nov 2021 07:12:14 +0900
From:   Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>
To:     Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@...debyte.com>
Cc:     Nikolay Kichukov <nikolay@...um.net>,
        v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...il.com>,
        Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@...kov.net>,
        Greg Kurz <groug@...d.org>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] 9p/trans_virtio: support larger msize values

Christian Schoenebeck wrote on Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 05:57:30PM +0100:
> > Although frankly as I said if we're going to do this, we actual can
> > majorate the actual max for all operations pretty easily thanks to the
> > count parameter -- I guess it's a bit more work but we can put arbitrary
> > values (e.g. 8k for all the small stuff) instead of trying to figure it
> > out more precisely; I'd just like the code path to be able to do it so
> > we only do that rechurn once.
> 
> Looks like we had a similar idea on this. My plan was something like this:
> 
> static int max_msg_size(enum msg_type) {
>     switch (msg_type) {
>         /* large zero copy messages */
>         case Twrite:
>         case Tread:
>         case Treaddir:
>             BUG_ON(true);
> 
>         /* small messages */
>         case Tversion:
>         ....
>             return 8k; /* to be replaced with appropriate max value */
>     }
> }
> 
> That would be a quick start and allow to fine grade in future. It would also 
> provide a safety net, e.g. the compiler would bark if a new message type is 
> added in future.

I assume that'd only be used if the caller does not set an explicit
limit, at which point we're basically using a constant and the function
coud be replaced by a P9_SMALL_MSG_SIZE constant... But yes, I agree
with the idea, it's these three calls that deal with big buffers in
either emission or reception (might as well not allocate a 128MB send
buffer for Tread ;))

If you have a Plan for it I'll let you continue and review as things
come. Thanks a lot for the work!

-- 
Dominique