linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 5/6] vsock: use local transport when it is loaded

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: <20191121100156.v4ehwmstlhujrviv@steredhat>
Date:   Thu, 21 Nov 2019 11:01:56 +0100
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
        Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jorgen Hansen <jhansen@...are.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 5/6] vsock: use local transport when it is loaded

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 09:46:14AM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 12:01:20PM +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > @@ -420,9 +436,10 @@ int vsock_assign_transport(struct vsock_sock *vsk, struct vsock_sock *psk)
> >  		new_transport = transport_dgram;
> >  		break;
> >  	case SOCK_STREAM:
> > -		if (remote_cid <= VMADDR_CID_HOST ||
> > -		    (transport_g2h &&
> > -		     remote_cid == transport_g2h->get_local_cid()))
> > +		if (vsock_use_local_transport(remote_cid))
> > +			new_transport = transport_local;
> > +		else if (remote_cid == VMADDR_CID_HOST ||
> > +			 remote_cid == VMADDR_CID_HYPERVISOR)
> >  			new_transport = transport_g2h;
> >  		else
> >  			new_transport = transport_h2g;
> 
> We used to send VMADDR_CID_RESERVED to the host.  Now we send
> VMADDR_CID_RESERVED (LOCAL) to the guest when there is no
> transport_local loaded?
> 
> If this is correct, is there a justification for this change?  It seems
> safest to retain existing behavior.

You're right, I'll revert this change in v2.

Thanks,
Stefano