linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] VMCI: Enforce queuepair max size for IOCTL_VMCI_QUEUEPAIR

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:   Mon, 11 Jan 2021 14:05:56 +0000
From:   Jorgen Hansen <jhansen@...are.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org" 
        <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        Pv-drivers <Pv-drivers@...are.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] VMCI: Enforce queuepair max size for
 IOCTL_VMCI_QUEUEPAIR_ALLOC

On 11 Jan 2021, at 13:46, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 04:18:53AM -0800, Jorgen Hansen wrote:
>> When create the VMCI queue pair tracking data structures on the host
>> side, the IOCTL for creating the VMCI queue pair didn't validate
>> the queue pair size parameters. This change adds checks for this.
>> 
>> This avoids a memory allocation issue in qp_host_alloc_queue, as
>> reported by nslusarek@....net. The check in qp_host_alloc_queue
>> has also been updated to enforce the maximum queue pair size
>> as defined by VMCI_MAX_GUEST_QP_MEMORY.
>> 
>> The fix has been verified using sample code supplied by
>> nslusarek@....net.
>> 
>> Reported-by: nslusarek@....net
>> Reviewed-by: Vishnu Dasa <vdasa@...are.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Jorgen Hansen <jhansen@...are.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/vmci_queue_pair.c | 12 ++++++++----
>> include/linux/vmw_vmci_defs.h           |  4 ++--
>> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.  You have sent him
> a patch that has triggered this response.  He used to manually respond
> to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
> writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
> created.  Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
> in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
> kernel tree.
> 
> You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
> as indicated below:
> 
> - You sent multiple patches, yet no indication of which ones should be
>  applied in which order.  Greg could just guess, but if you are
>  receiving this email, he guessed wrong and the patches didn't apply.
>  Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the
>  kernel file, Documentation/SubmittingPatches for a description of how
>  to do this so that Greg has a chance to apply these correctly.
> 
> 
> If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
> how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
> Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
> from other developers.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h's patch email bot

Hi,

The patches are independent and should be able to apply in any order;
I didn’t see any problems when applying them in different orders locally.

I’m hesitant to provide the patches as a series of patches, since one of
them:
 VMCI: Use set_page_dirty_lock() when unregistering guest memory
is marked as fixing an original checkin, and should be considered for
backporting, whereas the others are either not important to backport
or rely on other recent changes. However, if formatting them as a
series of misc fixes is preferred, I’ll do that.

Thanks,
Jorgen