netdev - Re: [PATCHv7 3/3] vhost_net: a kernel-level virtio server

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]

Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:41:47 +0200
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 3/3] vhost_net: a kernel-level virtio server

On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 02:37:28PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 03:17:36PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 02:15:33PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 03:08:28PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 01:59:57PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > > > Fine?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I cannot say -- are there paths that could drop the device beforehand?
> > > > 
> > > > Do you mean drop the mm reference?
> > > 
> > > No the reference to the device, which owns the mm for you.
> > 
> > The device is created when file is open and destroyed
> > when file is closed. So I think the fs code handles the
> > reference counting for me: it won't call file cleanup
> > callback while some userspace process has the file open.
> > Right?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But the semantics when someone inherits such a fd through exec
> or through file descriptor passing would be surely "interesting"
> You would still do IO on the old VM.
> 
> I guess it would be a good way to confuse memory accounting schemes 
> or administrators @)
> It would be all saner if this was all a single atomic step.
> 
> -Andi

I have this atomic actually. A child process will first thing
do SET_OWNER: this is required before any other operation.

SET_OWNER atomically (under mutex) does two things:
- check that there is no other owner
- get mm and set current process as owner

I hope this addresses your concern?

-- 
MST
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html