linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] s390/virtio_ccw: don't allocate/assign airqs for non-existing queues

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: <20250407192625.196b1b34.pasic@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2025 19:26:25 +0200
From: Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin"
 <mst@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux.dev,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, Chandra Merla
 <cmerla@...hat.com>,
        Stable@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Huth
 <thuth@...hat.com>,
        Eric Farman <farman@...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>, Wei Wang
 <wei.w.wang@...el.com>,
        Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] s390/virtio_ccw: don't allocate/assign airqs for
 non-existing queues

On Mon, 07 Apr 2025 15:28:13 +0200
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com> wrote:

> > Staring at the cross-vmm, including the adding+removing of features and 
> > queues that are not in the spec, I am wondering if (in a world with 
> > fixed virtqueues)
> >
> > 1) Feature bits must be reserved before used.
> >
> > 2) Queue indices must be reserved before used.
> >
> > It all smells like a problem similar to device IDs ...  
> 
> Indeed, we need a rule "reserve a feature bit/queue index before using
> it, even if you do not plan to spec it properly".

What definition of usage do you guys have in mind?  Would an RFC patch
constitute usage.

I think reserving/allocating an identifier of this type before relying on
it for anything remotely serious is very basic common sense.

Frankly I would go even further and advocate for the following rule: we
don't accept anything virtio into Linux unless it is reasonably/properly
spec-ed. My train of thought is following: if a virtio thing gains
traction with Linux it has a fair chance of becoming a de-facto standard.

Consider our thinking on this one. Despite the fact that what is spec-ed
is obviously nicer, we almost decided to change the spec to fit what is
implemented and fielded out there. And IMHO for good reason. For any
rule we come up with, I think one of the most crucial questions is, who
is going to enforce it if anybody. The Linux (and probably also QEMU)
virtio maintainers are in my opinion the most reasonable point of
enforcement. Another thing to consider. After the code is in and things
work, I speculate that the motivation for writing a proper spec may
wane. I hope we do strive for consistency between the spec and the
implementations we are talking about. Having and eye on the spec while
looking at and trying to understand the code suits my workflow better
at least than the other way around. And licensing-wise getting the spec
merged first is probably the better option. 

Regards,
Halil