linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 01/15] vfio: Add helpers for unifying vfio

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: <BN9PR11MB527696C9C458E1DE6E60B3A98C789@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 Aug 2022 06:03:54 +0000
From:   "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Anthony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
CC:     Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Wang, Zhi A" <zhi.a.wang@...el.com>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Joonas Lahtinen" <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Vivi, Rodrigo" <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
        Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...ux.intel.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Eric Farman <farman@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vineeth Vijayan <vneethv@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Peter Oberparleiter" <oberpar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Jason Herne <jjherne@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Harald Freudenberger <freude@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Diana Craciun <diana.craciun@....nxp.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
        Longfang Liu <liulongfang@...wei.com>,
        Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
        Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...dia.com>,
        Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
        Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        Abhishek Sahu <abhsahu@...dia.com>,
        "intel-gvt-dev@...ts.freedesktop.org" 
        <intel-gvt-dev@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org" <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 01/15] vfio: Add helpers for unifying vfio_device life
 cycle

> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 11:10 PM
> 
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 09:42:42AM -0400, Anthony Krowiak wrote:
> 
> > > +/*
> > > + * Alloc and initialize vfio_device so it can be registered to vfio
> > > + * core.
> > > + *
> > > + * Drivers should use the wrapper vfio_alloc_device() for allocation.
> > > + * @size is the size of the structure to be allocated, including any
> > > + * private data used by the driver.
> >
> >
> > It seems the purpose of the wrapper is to ensure that the object being
> > allocated has as its first field a struct vfio_device object and to return
> > its container. Why not just make that a requirement for this function -
> > which I would rename vfio_alloc_device - and document it in the prologue?
> > The caller can then cast the return pointer or use container_of.
> 
> There are three fairly common patterns for this kind of thing
> 
> 1) The caller open codes everything:
> 
>    driver_struct = kzalloc()
>    core_init(&driver_struct->core)
> 
> 2) Some 'get priv' / 'get data' is used instead of container_of():
> 
>    core_struct = core_alloc(sizeof(*driver_struct))
>    driver_struct = core_get_priv(core_struct)
> 
> 3) The allocations and initialization are consolidated in the core,
>    but we continue to use container_of()
> 
>    driver_struct = core_alloc(typeof(*driver_struct))
> 
> #1 has a general drawback that people routinely mess up the lifecycle
> model and get really confused about when to do kfree() vs put(),
> creating bugs.
> 
> #2 has a general drawback of not using container_of() at all, and being
> a bit confusing in some cases
> 
> #3 has the general drawback of being a bit magical, but solves 1 and
> 2's problems.
> 
> I would not fix the struct layout without the BUILD_BUG_ON because
> someone will accidently change the order and that becomes a subtle
> runtime error - so at a minimum the wrapper macro has to exist to
> check that.

Agree. And gvt happened to hit this BUILD_BUG_ON when this series
was being worked on.

> 
> If you want to allow a dynamic struct layout and avoid the pitfall of
> exposing the user to kalloc/kfree, then you still need the macro, and
> it does some more complicated offset stuff.
> 
> Having the wrapper macro be entirely type safe is appealing and
> reduces code in the drivers, IMHO. Tell it what type you are initing
> and get back init'd memory for that type that you always, always free
> with a put operation.
> 
> Jason