linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] vhost-vdpa: Fix some error handling path in vhost_vdpa_process_iotlb

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]

Message-ID: <20220523103345.6jf3r5e3ox5uvmk4@sgarzare-redhat>
Date:   Mon, 23 May 2022 12:33:45 +0200
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc:     Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
        kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        Gautam Dawar <gautam.dawar@...inx.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vhost-vdpa: Fix some error handling path in
 vhost_vdpa_process_iotlb_msg()

On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 12:41:03PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>On Sun, May 22, 2022 at 9:59 PM Christophe JAILLET
><christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr> wrote:
>>
>> In the error paths introduced by the commit in the Fixes tag, a mutex may
>> be left locked.
>> Add the correct goto instead of a direct return.
>>
>> Fixes: a1468175bb17 ("vhost-vdpa: support ASID based IOTLB API")
>> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
>> ---
>> WARNING: This patch only fixes the goto vs return mix-up in this function.
>> However, the 2nd hunk looks really spurious to me. I think that the:
>> -               return -EINVAL;
>> +               r = -EINVAL;
>> +               goto unlock;
>> should be done only in the 'if (!iotlb)' block.
>
>It should be fine, the error happen if
>
>1) the batched ASID based request is not equal (the first if)
>2) there's no IOTLB for this ASID (the second if)
>
>But I agree the code could be tweaked to use two different if instead
>of using a or condition here.

Yeah, I think so!

Anyway, this patch LGTM:

Reviewed-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>