[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130128154231.GF4838@konrad-lan.dumpdata.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 10:42:32 -0500
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad@...nel.org>,
xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/3] xen/blkback: Check for insane amounts of
request on the ring.
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:07:46AM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 25.01.13 at 19:43, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com> wrote:
> > @@ -764,6 +768,9 @@ __do_block_io_op(struct xen_blkif *blkif)
> > rp = blk_rings->common.sring->req_prod;
> > rmb(); /* Ensure we see queued requests up to 'rp'. */
> >
> > + if (RING_REQUEST_PROD_OVERFLOW(&blk_rings->common, rp, rc))
> > + return -EACCES;
>
> Actually I wonder whether we need the new macro at all: It seems
> to me that using RING_REQUEST_CONS_OVERFLOW(&blk_rings->common, rp)
> here would achieve the same effect.
But it would not. The RING_REQUEST_CONS_OVERFLOW only check that the
non-shared ring entries (rsp_prod and rsp_prod_pvt) are less than
the size of the ring (32). In other words - they check whether we want
to process more requests as we still have a back-log of responses to
deal with.
This new macro would check for the req_prod being bogus and out of
bounds. Bounds being the difference between rsp_prod and req_prod
being bigger than ring (32).
>
> Jan
>
> > +
> > while (rc != rp) {
> >
> > if (RING_REQUEST_CONS_OVERFLOW(&blk_rings->common, rc))
>
>
--
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