[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACGkMEvoFapNoqsqq59iH+z_qx1swecjnbbPs7=nN4bn6XdbtA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2022 11:48:08 +0800
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
eperezma <eperezma@...hat.com>, Cindy Lu <lulu@...hat.com>,
Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>,
Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Vineeth Vijayan <vneethv@...ux.ibm.com>,
Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@...ux.ibm.com>,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 9/9] virtio: use WARN_ON() to warning illegal status value
On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 6:50 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> At a minimum, I don't see why it's part of the series. Host can always
> crash the guest if it wants to ...
Probably not with some recent technology. In those cases, a fault will
be generated if the hypervisor tries to access the memory that is
private to the guest.
> The point of BUG_ON is device or driver is already corrupted so we
> should not try to drive it. If you still want this in pls come up with
> a better commit log explaining the why.
A question here, should we always use BUG_ON for the buggy/malicious hypervisor?
The interrupt hardening logic in this series tries to make guest
survive, so did this patch.
>
> On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 02:01:20PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > We used to use BUG_ON() in virtio_device_ready() to detect illegal
>
> not really, BUG_ON just crashes the kernel. we detect by checking
> status.
We need a kind of notification otherwise there's no way for the user
to know about this expected value.
>
> > status value, this seems sub-optimal since the value is under the
> > control of the device. Switch to use WARN_ON() instead.
>
> some people use crash on warn so ...
Yes, but the policy is under the control of the user.
>
> >
> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> > Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
> > Cc: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
> > Cc: Vineeth Vijayan <vneethv@...ux.ibm.com>
> > Cc: Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@...ux.ibm.com>
> > Cc: linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
>
> > ---
> > include/linux/virtio_config.h | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/virtio_config.h b/include/linux/virtio_config.h
> > index d4edfd7d91bb..9a36051ceb76 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/virtio_config.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/virtio_config.h
> > @@ -255,7 +255,7 @@ void virtio_device_ready(struct virtio_device *dev)
> > {
> > unsigned status = dev->config->get_status(dev);
> >
> > - BUG_ON(status & VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_DRIVER_OK);
> > + WARN_ON(status & VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_DRIVER_OK);
> >
>
> we lose debuggability as guest will try to continue.
> if we are doing this let us print a helpful message and dump a lot of
> state right here.
I'm ok with dropping this patch from the series. And revisit it in the future.
Thanks
>
> > /*
> > * The virtio_synchronize_cbs() makes sure vring_interrupt()
> > --
> > 2.25.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists