linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v4 04/10] vfio/pci: let vfio_pci know number of vendor regions and vendor irqs

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:   Thu, 11 Jun 2020 13:31:05 +0100
From:   David Edmondson <dme@....org>
To:     Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        alex.williamson@...hat.com, zhenyuw@...ux.intel.com,
        zhi.a.wang@...el.com, kevin.tian@...el.com, shaopeng.he@...el.com,
        yi.l.liu@...el.com, xin.zeng@...el.com, hang.yuan@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 04/10] vfio/pci: let vfio_pci know number of
 vendor regions and vendor irqs

On Thursday, 2020-06-04 at 22:15:42 -04, Yan Zhao wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 05:25:15PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 May 2020 22:49:44 -0400
>> Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > This allows a simpler VFIO_DEVICE_GET_INFO ioctl in vendor driver
>> > 
>> > Cc: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>
>> > Signed-off-by: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
>> > ---
>> >  drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c         | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
>> >  drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_private.h |  2 ++
>> >  include/linux/vfio.h                |  3 +++
>> >  3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> > 
>> > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c
>> > index 290b7ab55ecf..30137c1c5308 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c
>> > @@ -105,6 +105,24 @@ void *vfio_pci_vendor_data(void *device_data)
>> >  }
>> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vfio_pci_vendor_data);
>> >  
>> > +int vfio_pci_set_vendor_regions(void *device_data, int num_vendor_regions)
>> > +{
>> > +	struct vfio_pci_device *vdev = device_data;
>> > +
>> > +	vdev->num_vendor_regions = num_vendor_regions;
>> 
>> Do we need any kind of sanity check here, in case this is called with a
>> bogus value?
>>
> you are right. it at least needs to be >=0.
> maybe type of "unsigned int" is more appropriate for num_vendor_regions.
> we don't need to check its max value as QEMU would check it.

That seems like a bad precedent - the caller may not be QEMU.

dme.
-- 
I'm not the reason you're looking for redemption.