[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130128164707.GA7619@konrad-lan.dumpdata.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:47:08 -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 04:18:59PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 28.01.13 at 16:42, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> So did you not notice that here 'rp' (i.e. req_prod) is being passed,
> not 'rc'?
Oh, no I did not :-(
That ought to do the trick too.
--
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