linux-kernel - [PATCH v1 05/29] virtio-mem: generalize check for added memory

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: <20201012125323.17509-6-david@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Oct 2020 14:52:59 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta.linux@...il.com>
Subject: [PATCH v1 05/29] virtio-mem: generalize check for added memory

Let's check by traversing busy system RAM resources instead, to avoid
relying on memory block states.

Don't use walk_system_ram_range(), as that works on pages and we want to
use the bare addresses we have easily at hand.

Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta.linux@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
---
 drivers/virtio/virtio_mem.c | 19 +++++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_mem.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_mem.c
index b3eebac7191f..6bbd1cfd10d3 100644
--- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_mem.c
+++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_mem.c
@@ -1749,6 +1749,20 @@ static void virtio_mem_delete_resource(struct virtio_mem *vm)
 	vm->parent_resource = NULL;
 }
 
+static int virtio_mem_range_has_system_ram(struct resource *res, void *arg)
+{
+	return 1;
+}
+
+static bool virtio_mem_has_memory_added(struct virtio_mem *vm)
+{
+	const unsigned long flags = IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM | IORESOURCE_BUSY;
+
+	return walk_iomem_res_desc(IORES_DESC_NONE, flags, vm->addr,
+				   vm->addr + vm->region_size, NULL,
+				   virtio_mem_range_has_system_ram) == 1;
+}
+
 static int virtio_mem_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
 {
 	struct virtio_mem *vm;
@@ -1870,10 +1884,7 @@ static void virtio_mem_remove(struct virtio_device *vdev)
 	 * the system. And there is no way to stop the driver/device from going
 	 * away. Warn at least.
 	 */
-	if (vm->nb_mb_state[VIRTIO_MEM_MB_STATE_OFFLINE] ||
-	    vm->nb_mb_state[VIRTIO_MEM_MB_STATE_OFFLINE_PARTIAL] ||
-	    vm->nb_mb_state[VIRTIO_MEM_MB_STATE_ONLINE] ||
-	    vm->nb_mb_state[VIRTIO_MEM_MB_STATE_ONLINE_PARTIAL]) {
+	if (virtio_mem_has_memory_added(vm)) {
 		dev_warn(&vdev->dev, "device still has system memory added\n");
 	} else {
 		virtio_mem_delete_resource(vm);
-- 
2.26.2