linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] virtio: write back F_VERSION

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]

Message-ID: <87wnmoyfn3.fsf@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 07 Oct 2021 18:16:16 +0200
From:   Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
To:     Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, markver@...ibm.com,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, qemu-devel@...gnu.org,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Xie Yongji <xieyongji@...edance.com>, stefanha@...hat.com,
        Raphael Norwitz <raphael.norwitz@...anix.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] virtio: write back F_VERSION_1 before validate

On Thu, Oct 07 2021, Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Oct 2021 17:25:52 +0200
> Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 07 2021, Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > On Thu, 07 Oct 2021 13:52:24 +0200
>> > Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com> wrote:
>> >  
>> >> On Wed, Oct 06 2021, Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>> >>   
>> >> > The virtio specification virtio-v1.1-cs01 states: "Transitional devices
>> >> > MUST detect Legacy drivers by detecting that VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1 has not
>> >> > been acknowledged by the driver."  This is exactly what QEMU as of 6.1
>> >> > has done relying solely on VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1 for detecting that.
>> >> >
>> >> > However, the specification also says: "... driver MAY read (but MUST NOT
>> >> > write) the device-specific configuration fields to check that it can
>> >> > support the device ..." before setting FEATURES_OK.    
>> >> 
>> >> Suggest to put the citations from the spec into quotes, so that they are
>> >> distinguishable from the rest of the text.  
>> >
>> > For the record: I basically took Michael's description, the one which you
>> > said you prefer, with some minor changes.  
>> 
>> Well I did look at what the text said, not the details in the formatting...
>> 
>> >
>> > This is one of the changes, which renders this a paraphrase and not a
>> > quote. Michael didn't use quotation marks so I was not sure it is was
>> > a word by word quote anyway. It was. But the spec depends on "During this
>> > step" which does not make any sense without the context. That is why I made
>> > the end of step explicit.  
>> 
>> I still think that would be nicer while using some quotation marks, even
>> if you are just doing a partial quote.
>> 
>> In the first paragraph, however, we really should mark the quote
>> properly. It gave me a stop when I first read it.
>
> I've added in some quotation marks and ellipsis marks. Does that look
> good for you?

Yep, works for me.