linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 01/12] vhost-vdpa: add support for vDPA blk devices

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: <20201117150523.berhqwtgqjov3i63@steredhat>
Date:   Tue, 17 Nov 2020 16:05:23 +0100
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc:     virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Laurent Vivier <lvivier@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Eli Cohen <elic@...dia.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 01/12] vhost-vdpa: add support for vDPA blk devices

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 10:57:09AM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 02:47:01PM +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c b/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c
>> index 2754f3069738..fb0411594963 100644
>> --- a/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c
>> +++ b/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c
>> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@
>>  #include <linux/nospec.h>
>>  #include <linux/vhost.h>
>>  #include <linux/virtio_net.h>
>> +#include <linux/virtio_blk.h>
>>
>>  #include "vhost.h"
>>
>> @@ -194,6 +195,9 @@ static int vhost_vdpa_config_validate(struct vhost_vdpa *v,
>>  	case VIRTIO_ID_NET:
>>  		size = sizeof(struct virtio_net_config);
>>  		break;
>> +	case VIRTIO_ID_BLOCK:
>> +		size = sizeof(struct virtio_blk_config);
>> +		break;
>>  	}
>>
>>  	if (c->len == 0)
>
>Can vdpa_config_ops->get/set_config() handle the size check instead of
>hardcoding device-specific knowledge into drivers/vhost/vdpa.c?

I agree that this should be better. For example we already check if the 
buffer is large enough in the simulator callbacks, we only need to 
return an error in case it is not true.

@Jason, do you think it's okay to add a return value to 
vdpa_config_ops->get/set_config() to handle the size check?

Thanks,
Stefano