[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87mt68ostg.fsf@ubik.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 17:28:27 +0200
From: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, darwi@...utronix.de,
elena.reshetova@...el.com, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] PCI/MSI: Cache the MSIX table size
Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 02:42:11PM +0200, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
>> Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> writes:
>>
>> A malicious device is what the fuzzing is aiming to simulate. The fact
>> of fuzzing process itself didn't seem relevant to the patch, so I didn't
>> include it, going instead for the problem statement and proposed
>> solution. Will the commit message benefit from mentioning fuzzing?
>
> No, for most if not all kernel developers, the fuzzing means some sort of
> random user-space input. PCI devices are trusted in the kernel.
Right, it's a different kind of fuzzing. Apologies, I should have made
it clear.
>> > Do you see "gazillion bugs" for devices which don't change their MSI-X
>> > table size under the hood, which is main kernel assumption?
>>
>> Not so far.
>
> So please share them with us.
We do, as soon as we find them. This patch is one such instance.
>> > If yes, you should fix these bugs.
>>
>> That's absolutely the intention.
>
> So let's fix the bugs and not hide them.
Yes, that's what this patch aims to achieve.
Thanks,
--
Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists