linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] xen: limit grant v2 interface to the v1 functionality

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: <f2881fa5-d053-0bad-db64-f6f99935bd17@suse.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Sep 2017 10:13:18 +0200
From:   Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To:     Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] xen: limit grant v2 interface to the v1 functionality

On 13/09/17 18:20, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 09/13/2017 10:45 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 13/09/17 15:50, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>> On 09/13/2017 09:38 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> On 13/09/17 15:22, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>>> On 09/12/2017 02:18 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/09/17 18:21, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>>>>> On 09/12/2017 12:09 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/09/17 18:05, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 09/12/2017 11:50 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/09/17 17:44, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 09/08/2017 10:48 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> As there is currently no user for sub-page grants or transient grants
>>>>>>>>>>>> remove that functionality. This at once makes it possible to switch
>>>>>>>>>>>> from grant v2 to grant v1 without restrictions, as there is no loss of
>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality other than the limited frame number width related to
>>>>>>>>>>>> the switch.
>>>>>>>>>>> But isn't that ABI violation? v2 is expected to support this (XSAs
>>>>>>>>>>> notwithstanding)
>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't think so.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The hypervisor still supports it, but the domU (or dom0) isn't required
>>>>>>>>>> to make use of all the features IMHO. Or are you aware of any backend
>>>>>>>>>> querying the grant version of a frontend and acting in another way if v2
>>>>>>>>>> is detected?
>>>>>>>>> I am not aware of any but that doesn't mean that they don't (or won't)
>>>>>>>>> exist.
>>>>>>>> But isn't the frontend the one which is defining what is granted in
>>>>>>>> which way? How should there be an ABI breakage when the frontend just
>>>>>>>> isn't using sub-page or transitive grants?
>>>>>>> People may provide both front and backend drivers and frontends, knowing
>>>>>>> that v2 is available, could decide to use those features.
>>>>>> No, without the functions to use them it will be impossible.
>>>>> I don't follow this. Which functions? The ones this patch is removing?
>>>> Yes, just after having been added one patch earlier.
>>>>
>>>> Right now the Linux kernel doesn't support grant V2 at all. So there
>>>> surely is no driver making use of V2 features right now.
>>>>
>>>> Ican merge patches 1 and 2 in case you want. I just thought a pure
>>>> revert of the former V2 remove patch would be easier to review,
>>>> taking into account that the former V2 support was working in
>>>> production environments (and even back then there was no user of
>>>> sub-page or transient grants).
>>> No, I don't have problems with *how* you are doing this (revert fully
>>> first and then remove).
>>>
>>> I am just not sure that removing these functions is the way to go
>>> because we are ending up with partial implementation of v2. The fact
>>> that noone is/has been using these features is IMO not particularly
>>> relevant.
>>>
>>> If these two were optional features then it would have been reasonable
>>> to drop them.
>> Why does the kernel need to support all features of an interface?
>>
>> I'm quite sure there are lots of interfaces supported only partially in
>> the kernel.
> 
> I don't think partially supported interface is a supported interface.
> It's just something that has been working until now.
> 
>> Having support for functionality in the kernel not being used at all is
>> just adding dead code with a high potential to bitrot. I can't even test
>> this functionality right now, as there are no users of it. So I'd risk
>> adding something which is broken from the beginning. 
> 
> OK. That I haven't considered that.
> 
> BTW, why are you not removing (*update_trans_entry) definition from
> gnttab_ops? You are taking (*update_subpage_entry) out.

Just for having a reason to send V2. ;-)

Thanks for catching it.


Juergen