[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2021 16:49:50 +0100
From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>
Cc: virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Xie Yongji <xieyongji@...edance.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Laurent Vivier <lvivier@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@...dia.com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 08/10] vdpa: add vdpa simulator for block device
On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 09:34:12AM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 03:41:25PM +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>> +static void vdpasim_blk_work(struct work_struct *work)
>> +{
>> + struct vdpasim *vdpasim = container_of(work, struct vdpasim, work);
>> + u8 status = VIRTIO_BLK_S_OK;
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + spin_lock(&vdpasim->lock);
>> +
>> + if (!(vdpasim->status & VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_DRIVER_OK))
>> + goto out;
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < VDPASIM_BLK_VQ_NUM; i++) {
>> + struct vdpasim_virtqueue *vq = &vdpasim->vqs[i];
>> +
>> + if (!vq->ready)
>> + continue;
>> +
>> + while (vringh_getdesc_iotlb(&vq->vring, &vq->out_iov,
>> + &vq->in_iov, &vq->head,
>> + GFP_ATOMIC) > 0) {
>> + int write;
>> +
>> + vq->in_iov.i = vq->in_iov.used - 1;
>> + write = vringh_iov_push_iotlb(&vq->vring, &vq->in_iov,
>> + &status, 1);
>> + if (write <= 0)
>> + break;
>
>This code looks fragile:
>
>1. Relying on unsigned underflow and the while loop in
> vringh_iov_push_iotlb() to handle the case where in_iov.used == 0 is
> risky and could break.
>
>2. Does this assume that the last in_iov element has size 1? For
> example, the guest driver may send a single "in" iovec with size 513
> when reading 512 bytes (with an extra byte for the request status).
>
>Please validate inputs fully, even in test/development code, because
>it's likely to be copied by others when writing production code (or
>deployed in production by unsuspecting users) :).
Perfectly agree on that, so I addressed these things, also following
your review on the previous version, on the next patch of this series:
"vdpa_sim_blk: implement ramdisk behaviour".
Do you think should I move these checks in this patch?
I did this to leave Max credit for this patch and add more code to
emulate a ramdisk in later patches.
Thanks,
Stefano
Powered by blists - more mailing lists