[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220415064133.GA2961@anparri>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 08:41:33 +0200
From: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
To: "Michael Kelley (LINUX)" <mikelley@...rosoft.com>
Cc: KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>,
Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>, Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] hv_sock: Check hv_pkt_iter_first_raw()'s return
value
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 03:33:23AM +0000, Michael Kelley (LINUX) wrote:
> From: Andrea Parri (Microsoft) <parri.andrea@...il.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 1:48 PM
> >
> > The function returns NULL if the ring buffer has no enough space
> > available for a packet descriptor. The ring buffer's write_index
>
> The first sentence wording is a bit scrambled. I think you mean the
> ring buffer doesn't contain enough readable bytes to constitute a
> packet descriptor.
Indeed, replaced with your working.
> > is in memory which is shared with the Hyper-V host, its value is
> > thus subject to being changed at any time.
>
> This second sentence is true, but I'm not making the connection
> with the code change below. Evidently, there is some previous
> check made to ensure that enough bytes are available to be
> received when hvs_stream_dequeue() is called, so we assumed that
> NULL could never be returned? I looked but didn't find such a check,
> so maybe I didn't look carefully enough. But now we are assuming
> that Hyper-V might have invalidated that previous check by
> subsequently changing the write_index in a bogus way? So now, NULL
> could be returned when previously we assumed it couldn't.
I think you're looking for hvs_stream_has_data(). (Previous checks
apart, hvs_stream_dequeue() will "dereference" the pointer so...)
Thanks,
Andrea
Powered by blists - more mailing lists