linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/6] tools: hv: Add new fcopy application based on uio driver

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: <2024021932-marbled-passable-e7ab@gregkh>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 10:52:12 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Saurabh Singh Sengar <ssengar@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc: kys@...rosoft.com, haiyangz@...rosoft.com, wei.liu@...nel.org,
	decui@...rosoft.com, linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ssengar@...rosoft.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] tools: hv: Add new fcopy application based on uio
 driver

On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 01:24:21AM -0800, Saurabh Singh Sengar wrote:
> > > +#define HV_RING_SIZE		(4 * 4096)
> > 
> > Hey, that doesn't match the kernel driver!  Why these values?
> 
> This application talks to device which is recognize as HV_FCOPY
> is kernel. In the first patch of current patch series I have
> mentioned .pref_ring_size = 0x4000 for HV_FCOPY which matches this.
> 
> This code is well tested.

I'm commenting on the fact the 4096 is sometimes PAGE_SIZE and sometimes
not, and you have a default of using PAGE_SIZE values in the kernel
driver, and as such, this will not match up.  So be careful here.

> > > +
> > > +unsigned char desc[HV_RING_SIZE];
> > > +
> > > +static int target_fd;
> > > +static char target_fname[PATH_MAX];
> > > +static unsigned long long filesize;
> > > +
> > > +static int hv_fcopy_create_file(char *file_name, char *path_name, __u32 flags)
> > > +{
> > > +	int error = HV_E_FAIL;
> > > +	char *q, *p;
> > > +
> > > +	filesize = 0;
> > > +	p = (char *)path_name;
> > 
> > Why the unneeded cast?
> 
> This code is existing today as form of hv_fcopy_daemon. As this new
> application is replacing hv_fcopy_daemon I reused the same code and
> casting.

That wasn't obvious that this was copied code, please be explicit about
that.

thanks,

greg k-h