linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/scsifront: don't advance ring request pointer in case of error

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]

Date:   Tue, 29 Nov 2016 12:33:44 +0100
From:   Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To:     David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
        Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
Cc:     jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        martin.petersen@...cle.com, lambert.quentin@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
        boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, dan.carpenter@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/scsifront: don't advance ring request
 pointer in case of error

On 29/11/16 12:28, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 29/11/16 11:19, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 29/11/16 12:14, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 29.11.16 at 11:50, <JGross@...e.com> wrote:
>>>> --- a/drivers/scsi/xen-scsifront.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/xen-scsifront.c
>>>> @@ -184,8 +184,6 @@ static struct vscsiif_request *scsifront_pre_req(struct vscsifrnt_info *info)
>>>>  
>>>>  	ring_req = RING_GET_REQUEST(&(info->ring), ring->req_prod_pvt);
>>>>  
>>>> -	ring->req_prod_pvt++;
>>>
>>> Please note the "_pvt" suffix, which stands for "private": This field is
>>> not visible to the backend. Only ring->sring fields are shared, and
>>> the updating of the shared field happens in RING_PUSH_REQUESTS()
>>> and RING_PUSH_REQUESTS_AND_CHECK_NOTIFY().
>>
>> Sure, but RING_PUSH_REQUESTS() will copy req_prod_pvt to req_prod. In
>> the case corrected this would advance req_prod by two after the error
>> case before, even if only one request would have made it to the ring.
>>
>> As an alternative I could have decremented req_prod_pvt in case of an
>> error, but I like my current solution better.
> 
> FWIW, I found the commit message a bit misleading and also came to the
> same conclusion as Jan initially.
> 
> Perhaps,
> 
> "When adding a new request to the ring, an error may cause the
> (partially constructed) request to be discarded and used for the next.
> Thus ring->req_prod_pvt should not be advanced until we know the request
> will be successfully added to the ring."

This is indeed much better, thanks.

In case there are no other objections I'll fix this up when
committing.


Juergen