linux-kernel - RE: [Patch v3 2/6] cifs: Allocate validate negotiation request through kmalloc

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: <MWHPR2101MB07298391D72A2877D8A237B3CEB60@MWHPR2101MB0729.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Apr 2018 18:53:00 +0000
From:   Long Li <longli@...rosoft.com>
To:     Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>,
        "linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>,
        "samba-technical@...ts.samba.org" <samba-technical@...ts.samba.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [Patch v3 2/6] cifs: Allocate validate negotiation request
 through kmalloc

> Subject: Re: [Patch v3 2/6] cifs: Allocate validate negotiation request through
> kmalloc
> 
> On 4/18/2018 1:11 PM, Long Li wrote:
> >> Subject: Re: [Patch v3 2/6] cifs: Allocate validate negotiation
> >> request through kmalloc
> >>
> >> On 4/18/2018 9:08 AM, David Laight wrote:
> >>> From: Tom Talpey
> >>>> Sent: 18 April 2018 12:32
> >>> ...
> >>>> On 4/17/2018 8:33 PM, Long Li wrote:
> >>>>> From: Long Li <longli@...rosoft.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The data buffer allocated on the stack can't be DMA'ed, and hence
> >>>>> can't send through RDMA via SMB Direct.
> >>>>
> >>>> This comment is confusing. Any registered memory can be DMA'd,
> need
> >>>> to state the reason for the choice here more clearly.
> >>>
> >>> The stack could be allocated with vmalloc().
> >>> In which case the pages might not be physically contiguous and there
> >>> is no
> >>> (sensible) call to get the physical address required by the dma
> >>> controller (or other bus master).
> >>
> >> Memory registration does not requires pages to be physically contiguous.
> >> RDMA Regions can and do support very large physical page
> >> scatter/gather, and the adapter DMA's them readily. Is this the only
> reason?
> >
> > ib_dma_map_page will return an invalid DMA address for a buffer on stack.
> Even worse, this incorrect address can't be detected by
> ib_dma_mapping_error. Sending data from this address to hardware will not
> fail, but the remote peer will get junk data.
> >
> > I think it makes sense as stack is dynamic and can shrink as I/O proceeds, so
> the buffer is gone. Other kernel code use only data on the heap for DMA, e.g.
> BLK/SCSI layer never use buffer on the stack to send data.
> 
> I totally agree that registering the stack is a bad idea. I mainly suggest that
> you capture these fundamental ib_dma* reasons in the commit. There's no
> other practical reason why the original approach would not work.

Sure I will fix that.