linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] virtio_console: free unused buffers with virtio port

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 11 Mar 2019 02:53:29 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Pankaj Gupta <pagupta@...hat.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, amit@...nel.org,
        arnd@...db.de, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, xiaohli@...hat.com,
        Gal Hammer <ghammer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] virtio_console: free unused buffers with virtio port


> > 
> > Hello Michael,
> > 
> > Thanks for your reply.
> > 
> > > 
> > > On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 06:35:11PM +0530, Pankaj Gupta wrote:
> > > >   The commit a7a69ec0d8e4 ("virtio_console: free buffers after reset")
> > > >   deffered detaching of unused buffer to virtio device unplug time.
> > > > 
> > > >   This causes unplug/replug of single port in virtio device with an
> > > >   error "Error allocating inbufs\n". As we don't free the unused
> > > >   buffers
> > > >   attached with the port. Re-plug the same port tries to allocate new
> > > >   buffers in virtqueue and results in this error if queue is full.
> 
> That's the basic issue, isn't it? Why aren't we
> reusing buffers that are already there?

I think that that's how initial design has been. Will see if I can fix this.

> 
> 
> > > > 
> > > >   This patch removes the unused buffers in vq's when we unplug the
> > > >   port.
> > > >   This is the best we can do as we cannot call device_reset because
> > > >   virtio
> > > >   device is still active. This was the working behaviour before the
> > > >   change
> > > >   introduced in commit b3258ff1d6.
> > > > 
> > > >   Reported-by: Xiaohui Li <xiaohli@...hat.com>
> > > >   Fixes: b3258ff1d6 ("virtio_console: free buffers after reset")
> > > >   Signed-off-by: Pankaj Gupta <pagupta@...hat.com>
> > > 
> > > I think if you do this you need to add support
> > > in the packed ring.
> > 
> > o.k. I will look at the implementation details for "support
> > of packed ring" for virtio_console. This will take some time.
> > 
> > Meanwhile "virtio_console" port hotplug/unplug is broken in upstream.
> > Can we accept this patch as it fixes the upstream and together
> > with parent patch(b3258ff1d6) does nice cleanups as well.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Pankaj
> 
> Sorry, no - I don't think we should fix one configuration by breaking the
> other.
> If you want to go back, then that's a spec violation, but I guess we can
> fix the spec to match.  OK, but code-wise if you call
> virtqueue_detach_unused_buf without device reset then you need to teach
> packed ring code to support that.

o.k. Will look at this.

Thanks for the pointers.

Thanks,
Pankaj

> 
> 
> 
> > > 
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/char/virtio_console.c | 14 +++++++++++---
> > > >  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/virtio_console.c
> > > > b/drivers/char/virtio_console.c
> > > > index fbeb71953526..5fbf2ac73111 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/char/virtio_console.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/char/virtio_console.c
> > > > @@ -1506,15 +1506,25 @@ static void remove_port(struct kref *kref)
> > > >          kfree(port);
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > > +static void remove_unused_bufs(struct virtqueue *vq)
> > > > +{
> > > > +        struct port_buffer *buf;
> > > > +
> > > > +        while ((buf = virtqueue_detach_unused_buf(vq)))
> > > > +                free_buf(buf, true);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > >  static void remove_port_data(struct port *port)
> > > >  {
> > > >          spin_lock_irq(&port->inbuf_lock);
> > > >          /* Remove unused data this port might have received. */
> > > >          discard_port_data(port);
> > > > +        remove_unused_bufs(port->in_vq);
> > > >          spin_unlock_irq(&port->inbuf_lock);
> > > >  
> > > >          spin_lock_irq(&port->outvq_lock);
> > > >          reclaim_consumed_buffers(port);
> > > > +        remove_unused_bufs(port->out_vq);
> > > >          spin_unlock_irq(&port->outvq_lock);
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > > @@ -1950,11 +1960,9 @@ static void remove_vqs(struct ports_device
> > > > *portdev)
> > > >          struct virtqueue *vq;
> > > >  
> > > >          virtio_device_for_each_vq(portdev->vdev, vq) {
> > > > -                struct port_buffer *buf;
> > > >  
> > > >                  flush_bufs(vq, true);
> > > > -                while ((buf = virtqueue_detach_unused_buf(vq)))
> > > > -                        free_buf(buf, true);
> > > > +                remove_unused_bufs(vq);
> > > >          }
> > > >          portdev->vdev->config->del_vqs(portdev->vdev);
> > > >          kfree(portdev->in_vqs);
> > > > --
> > > > 2.20.1
> > > 
>