linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] virtio-vdpa: Fix unchecked call to NULL set_vq

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: <20230504145110-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 4 May 2023 14:51:55 -0400
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Feng Liu <feliu@...dia.com>
Cc:     Dragos Tatulea <dtatulea@...dia.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Xie Yongji <xieyongji@...edance.com>,
        Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] virtio-vdpa: Fix unchecked call to NULL set_vq_affinity

On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 01:08:54PM -0400, Feng Liu wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2023-05-04 a.m.9:50, Dragos Tatulea wrote:
> > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> > 
> > 
> > The referenced patch calls set_vq_affinity without checking if the op is
> > valid. This patch adds the check.
> > 
> > Fixes: 3dad56823b53 ("virtio-vdpa: Support interrupt affinity spreading mechanism")
> > Reviewed-by: Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Dragos Tatulea <dtatulea@...dia.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/virtio/virtio_vdpa.c | 4 +++-
> >   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_vdpa.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_vdpa.c
> > index eb6aee8c06b2..989e2d7184ce 100644
> > --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_vdpa.c
> > +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_vdpa.c
> > @@ -385,7 +385,9 @@ static int virtio_vdpa_find_vqs(struct virtio_device *vdev, unsigned int nvqs,
> >                          err = PTR_ERR(vqs[i]);
> >                          goto err_setup_vq;
> >                  }
> > -               ops->set_vq_affinity(vdpa, i, &masks[i]);
> > +
> > +               if (ops->set_vq_affinity)
> > +                       ops->set_vq_affinity(vdpa, i, &masks[i]);
> if ops->set_vq_affinity is NULL, should give an error code to err, and
> return err

Given we ignore return code, hardly seems like a critical thing to do.
Is it really important? affinity is an optimization isn't it?

> >          }
> > 
> >          cb.callback = virtio_vdpa_config_cb;
> > --
> > 2.40.1
> >