linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] PCI: hv: Move completion variable from stack to heap in hv_compose_msi

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 4 Jun 2021 08:49:46 +0000
From:   Long Li <longli@...rosoft.com>
To:     Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
CC:     Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
        "longli@...uxonhyperv.com" <longli@...uxonhyperv.com>,
        KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
        Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        "linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrea Parri <Andrea.Parri@...rosoft.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] PCI: hv: Move completion variable from stack to heap in
 hv_compose_msi_msg()

> Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: hv: Move completion variable from stack to heap in
> hv_compose_msi_msg()
> 
> > I agree if the intent is to deal with a untrusted host, I can follow the same
> principle to add this support to all requests to VSP. But this is a different
> problem to what this patch intends to address. I can see they may share the
> same design principle and common code. My question on a untrusted host is:
> If a host is untrusted and is misbehaving on purpose, what's the point of
> keep the VM running and not crashing the PCI driver?
> 
> I think the principle can be summarized with "keep the VM _running, if you
> can handle the misbehaviour (possibly, warning on "something
> wrong/unexpected just happened"); crash, otherwise".
> 
> Of course, this is just a principle: the exact meaning of that 'handle' should be
> leverage case by case (which I admittedly haven't here); I'm thinking, e.g., at
> corresponding complexity/performance impacts and risks of 'mis-
> assessments'.
> 
> Thanks,
>   Andrea

I will follow Michael's suggestion and send v2.

Long