| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <c0a33fb0dc8062ad639bb164f06a09f5635490f2.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2023 18:01:42 +0100
From: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 08/14] KVM: s390: Move common code of mem_op
functions into functions
On Thu, 2023-01-26 at 07:48 +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 25/01/2023 22.26, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
> > The vcpu and vm mem_op ioctl implementations share some functionality.
> > Move argument checking and buffer allocation into functions and call
> > them from both implementations.
> > This allows code reuse in case of additional future mem_op operations.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@...ux.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> > 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> > index e4890e04b210..e0dfaa195949 100644
> > --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> > +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> > @@ -2764,24 +2764,44 @@ static int kvm_s390_handle_pv(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_pv_cmd *cmd)
> > return r;
> > }
> >
> > -static bool access_key_invalid(u8 access_key)
> > +static int mem_op_validate_common(struct kvm_s390_mem_op *mop, u64 supported_flags)
> > {
> > - return access_key > 0xf;
> > + if (mop->flags & ~supported_flags || !mop->size)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + if (mop->size > MEM_OP_MAX_SIZE)
> > + return -E2BIG;
> > + if (mop->flags & KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_SKEY_PROTECTION) {
> > + if (mop->key > 0xf)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + } else {
> > + mop->key = 0;
> > + }
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void *mem_op_alloc_buf(struct kvm_s390_mem_op *mop)
> > +{
> > + void *buf;
> > +
> > + if (mop->flags & KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CHECK_ONLY)
> > + return NULL;
> > + buf = vmalloc(mop->size);
> > + if (!buf)
> > + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> > + return buf;
> > }
> >
> > static int kvm_s390_vm_mem_op(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_s390_mem_op *mop)
> > {
> > void __user *uaddr = (void __user *)mop->buf;
> > - u64 supported_flags;
> > void *tmpbuf = NULL;
>
> You likely can now remove the "= NULL" here, I guess?
Yeah, I thought about it, but wasn't sure if I like moving the line down because of
some people's insistence on reverse christmas tree.
It's entirely arbitrary in a different way, but I like the return value being the last
thing declared.
In the end I forgot to make a decision on it.
>
> > int r, srcu_idx;
> >
> > - supported_flags = KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_SKEY_PROTECTION
> > - | KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CHECK_ONLY;
> > - if (mop->flags & ~supported_flags || !mop->size)
> > - return -EINVAL;
> > - if (mop->size > MEM_OP_MAX_SIZE)
> > - return -E2BIG;
> > + r = mem_op_validate_common(mop, KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_SKEY_PROTECTION |
> > + KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CHECK_ONLY);
> > + if (r)
> > + return r;
> > +
> > /*
> > * This is technically a heuristic only, if the kvm->lock is not
> > * taken, it is not guaranteed that the vm is/remains non-protected.
> > @@ -2793,17 +2813,9 @@ static int kvm_s390_vm_mem_op(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_s390_mem_op *mop)
> > */
> > if (kvm_s390_pv_get_handle(kvm))
> > return -EINVAL;
> > - if (mop->flags & KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_SKEY_PROTECTION) {
> > - if (access_key_invalid(mop->key))
> > - return -EINVAL;
> > - } else {
> > - mop->key = 0;
> > - }
> > - if (!(mop->flags & KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CHECK_ONLY)) {
> > - tmpbuf = vmalloc(mop->size);
> > - if (!tmpbuf)
> > - return -ENOMEM;
> > - }
> > + tmpbuf = mem_op_alloc_buf(mop);
> > + if (IS_ERR(tmpbuf))
> > + return PTR_ERR(tmpbuf);
> >
> > srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(&kvm->srcu);
> >
> > @@ -5250,28 +5262,20 @@ static long kvm_s390_vcpu_mem_op(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > {
> > void __user *uaddr = (void __user *)mop->buf;
> > void *tmpbuf = NULL;
>
> ... and here, too.
>
> But I have to admit that I'm also not sure whether I like the
> mem_op_alloc_buf() part or not (the mem_op_validate_common() part looks fine
> to me) : mem_op_alloc_buf() is a new function with 11 lines of code, and the
> old spots that allocate memory were only 5 lines of code each, so you now
> increased the LoC count and additionally have to fiddly with IS_ERR and
> PTR_ERR which is always a little bit ugly in my eyes ... IMHO I'd rather
> keep the old code here. But that's just my 0.02 €, if you think it's nicer
> with mem_op_alloc_buf(), I won't insist on keeping the old code.
Yeah, that's fair.
>
> Thomas
>
>
> > - int r = 0;
> > - const u64 supported_flags = KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_INJECT_EXCEPTION
> > - | KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CHECK_ONLY
> > - | KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_SKEY_PROTECTION;
> > + int r;
> >
> > - if (mop->flags & ~supported_flags || mop->ar >= NUM_ACRS || !mop->size)
> > + r = mem_op_validate_common(mop, KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_INJECT_EXCEPTION |
> > + KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CHECK_ONLY |
> > + KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_SKEY_PROTECTION);
> > + if (r)
> > + return r;
> > + if (mop->ar >= NUM_ACRS)
> > return -EINVAL;
> > - if (mop->size > MEM_OP_MAX_SIZE)
> > - return -E2BIG;
> > if (kvm_s390_pv_cpu_is_protected(vcpu))
> > return -EINVAL;
> > - if (mop->flags & KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_SKEY_PROTECTION) {
> > - if (access_key_invalid(mop->key))
> > - return -EINVAL;
> > - } else {
> > - mop->key = 0;
> > - }
> > - if (!(mop->flags & KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CHECK_ONLY)) {
> > - tmpbuf = vmalloc(mop->size);
> > - if (!tmpbuf)
> > - return -ENOMEM;
> > - }
> > + tmpbuf = mem_op_alloc_buf(mop);
> > + if (IS_ERR(tmpbuf))
> > + return PTR_ERR(tmpbuf);
> >
> > switch (mop->op) {
> > case KVM_S390_MEMOP_LOGICAL_READ:
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists