[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121206235949.GA30775@amt.cnet>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 21:59:49 -0200
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, gleb@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/6] kvm: Re-introduce memslots->nmemslots
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 09:58:48PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 08:51:37PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > id_to_memslot seems like a good place to catch all the users since
> > > > that's the only way to get a slot from a slot id after the array is
> > > > sorted. We need to check both is the slot in bounds (EINVAL), but also
> > > > is it allocated (ENOENT). id_to_memslot could both of these if we
> > > > wanted to switch it to ERR_PTR. Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Alex
> > >
> > > There should never be a reference to a slot out of bounds by KVM itself
> > > (BUG_ON). Only userspace can attempt a reference to such slot.
> >
> > If I understand correctly, you're saying this last chunk is unique
> > because kvm_get_dirty_log() is an internal interface and the test should
> > be restricted to callers from userspace interfaces, namely
> > kvm_vm_ioctl_get_dirty_log(). That sounds reasonable; book3s_pr seems
> > to be the only caller that relies on kvm_get_dirty_log() validating the
> > slot. Thanks,
> >
> > Alex
>
> Yep - so you can move the check to such userspace interfaces, and bug on
> on WARN otherwise (in id_to_memslot).
WARN_ON. The point is, if its not a valid condition, it should be
explicitly so.
> Does that make sense??
>
--
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