linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/9] xen-netback: Introduce TX grant map definitions

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: <52CC1453.3090804@citrix.com>
Date:	Tue, 7 Jan 2014 14:50:59 +0000
From:	Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@...rix.com>
To:	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>
CC:	<ian.campbell@...rix.com>, <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<jonathan.davies@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/9] xen-netback: Introduce TX grant map definitions

On 16/12/13 17:50, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 03:21:40PM +0000, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
> [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Should this be BUG_ON? AIUI this kthread should be the only one doing
>>>>>>> unmap, right?
>>>>> The NAPI instance can do it as well if it is a small packet fits
>>>>> into PKT_PROT_LEN. But still this scenario shouldn't really happen,
>>>>> I was just not sure we have to crash immediately. Maybe handle it as
>>>>> a fatal error and destroy the vif?
>>>>>
>>> It depends. If this is within the trust boundary, i.e. everything at the
>>> stage should have been sanitized then we should BUG_ON because there's
>>> clearly a bug somewhere in the sanitization process, or in the
>>> interaction of various backend routines.
>>
>> My understanding is that crashing should be avoided if we can bail
>> out somehow. At this point there is clearly a bug in netback
>> somewhere, something unmapped that page before it should have
>> happened, or at least that array get corrupted somehow. However
>> there is a chance that xenvif_fatal_tx_err() can contain the issue,
>> and the rest of the system can go unaffected.
>>
>
> That would make debugging much harder if a crash is caused by a previous
> corrupted array and we pretend we can carry on serving IMHO. Now netback
> is having three routines (NAPI, two kthreads) to serve a single vif, the
> interation among them makes bug hard to reproduce.

OK, I'll make this a BUG() in the next series.

Zoli

--
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/