linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] virtio-net: inline header support

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: <506D8DD5.20904@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:23:33 +0200
From:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
CC:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Lendacky <tahm@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, avi@...hat.com,
	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] virtio-net: inline header support

Il 04/10/2012 14:51, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
> Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> writes:
> 
>> Il 04/10/2012 02:11, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
>>>>> There's a reason I haven't done this.  I really, really dislike "my
>>>>> implemention isn't broken" feature bits.  We could have an infinite
>>>>> number of them, for each bug in each device.
>>>>
>>>> However, this bug affects (almost) all implementations and (almost) all
>>>> devices.  It even makes sense to reserve a transport feature bit for it
>>>> instead of a device feature bit.
>>>
>>> Perhaps, but we have to fix the bugs first!
>>
>> Yes. :)  Isn't that what mst's patch does?
>>
>>> As I said, my torture patch broke qemu immediately.  Since noone has
>>> leapt onto fixing that, I'll take a look now...
>>
>> I can look at virtio-scsi.
> 
> Actually, you can't, see my reply to Anthony...
> 
> Message-ID: <87lifm1y1n.fsf@...tcorp.com.au>

    struct virtio_scsi_req_cmd {
        // Read-only
        u8 lun[8];
        u64 id;
        u8 task_attr;
        u8 prio;
        u8 crn;
        char cdb[cdb_size];
        char dataout[];
        // Write-only part
        u32 sense_len;
        u32 residual;
        u16 status_qualifier;
        u8 status;
        u8 response;
        u8 sense[sense_size];
        char datain[];
    };

where cdb_size and sense_size come from configuration space.  The device
right now expects everything before dataout/datain to be in a single
descriptor, but that's in no way part of the spec.  Am I missing
something egregious?

Paolo

--
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/