| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1318415425.21903.652.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 11:30:25 +0100
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
CC: Li Dongyang <lidongyang@...ell.com>,
"hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
Dong Yang Li <lidongyang@...e.com>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 2/3] xen/blkback: Fix the inhibition to
map pages when discarding sector ranges.
On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 21:50 +0100, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 02:39:09PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 03:33:11PM +0800, Li Dongyang wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com> wrote:
> > > >>>> On 10.10.11 at 17:28, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com> wrote:
> > > >> The 'operation' parameters are the ones provided to the bio layer while
> > > >> the req->operation are the ones passed in between the backend and
> > > >> frontend. We used the wrong 'operation' value to squash the
> > > >> call to map pages when processing the discard operation resulting
> > > >> in mapping the pages unnecessarily.
> > > >>
> > > >> CC: Li Dongyang <lidongyang@...ell.com>
> > > >> Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
> > > >> ---
> > > >> drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c | 2 +-
> > > >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > > >>
> > > >> diff --git a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
> > > >> b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
> > > >> index 184b133..3da9a40 100644
> > > >> --- a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
> > > >> +++ b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
> > > >> @@ -707,7 +707,7 @@ static int dispatch_rw_block_io(struct xen_blkif *blkif,
> > > >> * the hypercall to unmap the grants - that is all done in
> > > >> * xen_blkbk_unmap.
> > > >> */
> > > >> - if (operation != BLKIF_OP_DISCARD &&
> > > >> + if (operation != REQ_DISCARD &&
> > > >
> > > > Why is that check necessary in the first place? xen_blkbk_map() doesn't
> > > > do any harm when req->nr_segments is zero (as could also be the case
> > > > on WRITE_FLUSH ones).
> > > >
> > > Ah, you are right, we could remove this check then, Thanks
> >
> > Except that req->nr_segments for blkif__request_discard is actually
> > the reserved field.
Either this field is nr_segments for op==DISCARD or it is not.
If it is then it should be named nr_segments and treated as such.
If it is not then it is a bug for anything to look at those bits in
memory and treat them as nr_segments.
There was a patch (from Own Smith) at one point to use a union in the
blkif request data type, would doing that help to make it clear which
fields overlap and which do not?
> > See:
> >
> > struct blkif_request {
> > uint8_t operation; /* BLKIF_OP_??? */
> > uint8_t nr_segments; /* number of segments */
> > blkif_vdev_t handle; /* only for read/write requests */
> > .. snip..
> >
> > and:
> > struct blkif_request_discard {
> > uint8_t operation; /* BLKIF_OP_DISCARD */
> > /* ignored if 'discard-secure=0' */
> > #define BLKIF_OP_DISCARD_FLAG_SECURE (1<<0)
> > uint8_t flag; /* BLKIF_OP_DISCARD_FLAG_SECURE or 0 */
> > blkif_vdev_t handle; /* same as for read/write requests */
> >
> > which will throw off the logic for nr_segments all wrong since for some
> > discard operations it would read the nr_segments as 1.
> >
> > So we do need some logic in there to work with this.
>
>
> So a patch like this (and there is another on top that moves the setting
> of nseg) should do it.
>
>
> commit 12679b29b2f828454f833e17e9090ed576c63afc
> Author: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
> Date: Mon Oct 10 00:47:49 2011 -0400
>
> xen/blkback: Fix the inhibition to map pages when discarding sector ranges.
>
> The 'operation' parameters are the ones provided to the bio layer while
> the req->operation are the ones passed in between the backend and
> frontend. We used the wrong 'operation' value to squash the
> call to map pages when processing the discard operation resulting
> in an hypercall that did nothing. Lets guard against going in the
> mapping function by checking for the amount of segments.
>
> CC: Li Dongyang <lidongyang@...ell.com>
> Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
> index c15c559..94e659d 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
> @@ -707,8 +707,7 @@ static int dispatch_rw_block_io(struct xen_blkif *blkif,
> * the hypercall to unmap the grants - that is all done in
> * xen_blkbk_unmap.
> */
> - if (operation != BLKIF_OP_DISCARD &&
> - xen_blkbk_map(req, pending_req, seg))
> + if (nseg && xen_blkbk_map(req, pending_req, seg))
nseg == reg->nr_segments, so as above either referencing nseg when
operation == BLKIF_OP_DISCARD is a bug or the field is badly named.
Ian.
> goto fail_flush;
>
> /*
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists