linux-kernel - Re: [KVM PATCH v10] kvm: add support for irqfd

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]

Message-ID: <4A34EC47.5090103@novell.com>
Date:	Sun, 14 Jun 2009 08:25:43 -0400
From:	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
CC:	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, avi@...hat.com,
	davidel@...ilserver.org, mtosatti@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [KVM PATCH v10] kvm: add support for irqfd

Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 04:16:47PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>   
>>> +
>>> +	ret = file->f_op->poll(file, &irqfd->pt);
>>> +	if (ret < 0)
>>> +		goto fail;
>>>       
>
> Looking at it some more, we have:
> struct file_operations {
> ....
> 	unsigned int (*poll) (struct file *, struct poll_table_struct *);
>
> So the comparison above does not seem to make sense:
> it seems that the return value from poll can not be negative.
>   

Indeed.  Will fix.
> Will the callback be executed if someone did a write to eventfd
> before we attached it? If no, maybe we should call it here
> if ret != 0.
>   

I do the cleanup in case the callback has been called, but poll() fails
somewhere internally afterwards.  Perhaps this is not a realistic
scenario, but it was my motivation for adding the wqh cleanup.
>
>   
>>> +
>>> +	irqfd->file = file;
>>> +
>>> +	mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
>>> +	list_add_tail(&irqfd->list, &kvm->irqfds);
>>> +	mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
>>> +
>>> +	return 0;
>>> +
>>> +fail:
>>> +	if (irqfd->wqh)
>>> +		remove_wait_queue(irqfd->wqh, &irqfd->wait);
>>>       
>> Why are these 2 lines here? Either we might get a callback even though
>> poll failed - and then this test without lock is probably racy -
>> or we can't, and then we can replace the above with BUG_ON(irqfd->wqh).
>>
>> Which is it? I think the later ...
>>
>>
>>     
>>> +
>>> +	if (file && !IS_ERR(file))
>>> +		fput(file);
>>> +
>>> +	kfree(irqfd);
>>> +	return ret;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>       



Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (267 bytes)