linux-kernel - Re: [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: <20201016223906.GA48071@L-31X9LVDL-1304.local>
Date:   Sat, 17 Oct 2020 06:39:06 +0800
From:   Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta.linux@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 05/29] virtio-mem: generalize check for added memory

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 02:52:59PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>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>

Reviewed-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...ux.alibaba.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

-- 
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me