[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120316071858.GH3220@mwanda>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 10:18:58 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>
Cc: "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"devel@...uxdriverproject.org" <devel@...uxdriverproject.org>,
"virtualization@...ts.osdl.org" <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>,
"ohering@...e.com" <ohering@...e.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Drivers: hv: Support the newly introduced KVP
messages in the driver
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 06:33:35AM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dan Carpenter [mailto:dan.carpenter@...cle.com]
> > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 1:46 AM
> > To: KY Srinivasan
> > Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> > devel@...uxdriverproject.org; virtualization@...ts.osdl.org; ohering@...e.com;
> > Alan Stern
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Drivers: hv: Support the newly introduced KVP
> > messages in the driver
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 05:48:43PM -0700, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote:
> > > /*
> > > * The windows host expects the key/value pair to be encoded
> > > * in utf16.
> > > */
> > > keylen = utf8s_to_utf16s(key_name, strlen(key_name),
> > UTF16_HOST_ENDIAN,
> > > - (wchar_t *) kvp_data->data.key,
> > > + (wchar_t *) kvp_data->key,
> > > HV_KVP_EXCHANGE_MAX_KEY_SIZE / 2);
> > > - kvp_data->data.key_size = 2*(keylen + 1); /* utf16 encoding */
> > > + kvp_data->key_size = 2*(keylen + 1); /* utf16 encoding */
> > > +
> >
> > I feel like a jerk for asking this, but is the output length correct
> > here? It seems like we could go over again. Also utf8s_to_utf16s()
> > can return negative error codes, why do we ignore those?
>
> We are returning the strings back to the host here. There are checks elsewhere
> in the code to ensure that all strings we return to the host can be accommodated
> in the available space. For the most part these are strings that the host gave us in the
> first place that have already been validated. Furthermore, there are checks on the
> host side to ensure that the returned size parameters are consistent with the protocol
> definitions for the key value pair. For instance let us say somehow we got into a
> situation where the converted utf16 string occupied the entire MAX sized array
> without any room for the terminating character and we set the length parameter
> to 2 more than the MAX value as this code would do. The host would simply discard the
> message as an illegal message. This would be more appropriate than sending a
> truncated key or value.
>
Uh... Looking at it again, this code is clearly off by one. If
we're not going to hit the limit, then we're not going to truncate,
so that's not a concern. Let's just use the correct limit here.
The problem is that off-by-ones tend to reproduce by copy and paste.
It's best to never introduce any, even harmless ones.
Either that or add a comment. /* Don't care about wrong limitter
because we trust the input. */.
> With regards to the negative values, negative values indicate a failure of some sort
> in the conversion. Since the host is the recipient here, host will correctly deal with the
> transaction by discarding the tuple.
I'm not super familiar with this subsystem. Where can I find code
for rejecting bad transactions? It seems like an easy thing to
handle the error in both places. It makes auditing the code a lot
simpler.
regards,
dan carpenter
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists