netdev - RE: [PATCH v2 1/6] mdev: Introduce sha1 based mdev alias

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: <AM0PR05MB4866B62A2EDFE341AC4EA1B5D1B90@AM0PR05MB4866.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Tue, 3 Sep 2019 03:47:35 +0000
From:   Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
To:     Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
CC:     "alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        "kwankhede@...dia.com" <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 1/6] mdev: Introduce sha1 based mdev alias



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
> Sent: Monday, September 2, 2019 8:16 PM
> To: Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
> Cc: alex.williamson@...hat.com; Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>;
> kwankhede@...dia.com; davem@...emloft.net; kvm@...r.kernel.org;
> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; netdev@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] mdev: Introduce sha1 based mdev alias
> 
> On Fri, 30 Aug 2019 15:45:13 +0000
> Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com> wrote:
> 
> > > > > > > This detour via the local variable looks weird to me. Can
> > > > > > > you either create the alias directly in the mdev (would need
> > > > > > > to happen later in the function, but I'm not sure why you
> > > > > > > generate the alias before checking for duplicates anyway), or do
> an explicit copy?
> > > > > > Alias duplicate check is done after generating it, because
> > > > > > duplicate alias are
> > > > > not allowed.
> > > > > > The probability of collision is rare.
> > > > > > So it is speculatively generated without hold the lock,
> > > > > > because there is no
> > > > > need to hold the lock.
> > > > > > It is compared along with guid while mutex lock is held in single
> loop.
> > > > > > And if it is duplicate, there is no need to allocate mdev.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It will be sub optimal to run through the mdev list 2nd time
> > > > > > after mdev
> > > > > creation and after generating alias for duplicate check.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok, but what about copying it? I find this "set local variable
> > > > > to NULL after ownership is transferred" pattern a bit unintuitive.
> > > > > Copying it to the mdev (and then unconditionally freeing it)
> > > > > looks more
> > > obvious to me.
> > > > Its not unconditionally freed.
> > >
> > > That's not what I have been saying :(
> > >
> > Ah I see. You want to allocate alias memory twice; once inside mdev device
> and another one in _create() function.
> > _create() one you want to free unconditionally.
> >
> > Well, passing pointer is fine.
> 
> It's not that it doesn't work, but it feels fragile due to its non-obviousness.
And its well commented as Alex asked.

> 
> > mdev_register_device() has similar little tricky pattern that makes parent =
> NULL on __find_parent_device() finds duplicate one.
> 
> I don't think that the two are comparable.
>
They are very similar.
Why parent should be marked null otherwise.

 > >
> > Ownership transfer is more straight forward code.
> 
> I have to disagree here.
>
Ok. It is better than allocating memory twice. So I prefer to stick to this method.
 
> >
> > It is similar to device_initialize(), device init sequence code, where once
> device_initialize is done, freeing the device memory will be left to the
> put_device(), we don't call kfree() on mdev device.
> 
> This does not really look similar to me: devices are refcounted structures,
> while strings aren't; you transfer a local pointer to a refcounted structure
> and then discard the local reference.