netdev - Re: [PATCH V2] vhost: fix check for # of outstanding buffers

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1311264721.3354.7.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:12:01 -0700
From:	Shirley Ma <mashirle@...ibm.com>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	jasowang@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2]  vhost: fix check for # of outstanding buffers

On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 11:06 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 10:23:12AM -0700, Shirley Ma wrote:
> > Fix the check for number of outstanding buffers returns incorrect
> > results due to vq->pend_idx wrap around;
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Shirley Ma <xma@...ibm.com>
> 
> OK, the logic's right now, and it's not worse
> than what we had, so I applied this after
> fixing up the comment (it's upend_idx and English
> sentences don't need to end with a semicolumn ;)
> 
> However, I would like to see the effect of the bug
> noted in the log in the future.
> 
> And the reason I mention this here, is that
> I think that the whole VHOST_MAX_PEND thing
> does not work as advertised: this logic only
> triggers when the ring is empty, so we will happily push
> more than VHOST_MAX_PEND packets if the guest manages
> to give them to us.
> 
> I'm not sure why we have the limit, either: the wmem
> limit in the socket still applies and seems more
> effective to prevent denial of service by a malicious guest.

Vhost can push more than VHOST_MAX_PEND if the guest manages to give
more. That's managed by wmem limit.

MAX_PEND is max of outstanding used buffers which lower level device
can't DMAed on time. socket destructor remains unchanged, so it can't
managed by wmem.

Since vhost handle_tx always calls vhost_zerocopy_singal_used() so this
condition is unlikely hit unless the lower device can't DMAed TX
MAX_PEND packets.

Thanks
Shirley

--
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