netdev - Re: [RFC 1/2] vhost: IFC VF hardware operation layer

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: <20191023101329.GE8732@netronome.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 Oct 2019 12:13:31 +0200
From:   Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc:     "Zhu, Lingshan" <lingshan.zhu@...el.com>, mst@...hat.com,
        alex.williamson@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, dan.daly@...el.com,
        cunming.liang@...el.com, tiwei.bie@...el.com, jason.zeng@...el.com,
        zhiyuan.lv@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] vhost: IFC VF hardware operation layer

On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 09:32:36AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> On 2019/10/22 上午12:31, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 05:55:33PM +0800, Zhu, Lingshan wrote:
> > > On 10/16/2019 5:53 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > > Hi Zhu,
> > > > 
> > > > thanks for your patch.
> > > > 
> > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 09:10:40AM +0800, Zhu Lingshan wrote:
> > ...
> > 
> > > > > +static void ifcvf_read_dev_config(struct ifcvf_hw *hw, u64 offset,
> > > > > +		       void *dst, int length)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	int i;
> > > > > +	u8 *p;
> > > > > +	u8 old_gen, new_gen;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	do {
> > > > > +		old_gen = ioread8(&hw->common_cfg->config_generation);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +		p = dst;
> > > > > +		for (i = 0; i < length; i++)
> > > > > +			*p++ = ioread8((u8 *)hw->dev_cfg + offset + i);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +		new_gen = ioread8(&hw->common_cfg->config_generation);
> > > > > +	} while (old_gen != new_gen);
> > > > Would it be wise to limit the number of iterations of the loop above?
> > > Thanks but I don't quite get it. This is used to make sure the function
> > > would get the latest config.
> > I am worried about the possibility that it will loop forever.
> > Could that happen?
> > 
> > ...
> 
> 
> My understanding is that the function here is similar to virtio config
> generation [1]. So this can only happen for a buggy hardware.

Ok, so this circles back to my original question.
Should we put a bound on the number of times the loop runs
or should we accept that the kernel locks up if the HW is buggy?

> 
> Thanks
> 
> [1] https://docs.oasis-open.org/virtio/virtio/v1.1/csprd01/virtio-v1.1-csprd01.html
> Section 2.4.1
> 
> 
> > 
> > > > > +static void io_write64_twopart(u64 val, u32 *lo, u32 *hi)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	iowrite32(val & ((1ULL << 32) - 1), lo);
> > > > > +	iowrite32(val >> 32, hi);
> > > > > +}
> > > > I see this macro is also in virtio_pci_modern.c
> > > > 
> > > > Assuming lo and hi aren't guaranteed to be sequential
> > > > and thus iowrite64_hi_lo() cannot be used perhaps
> > > > it would be good to add a common helper somewhere.
> > > Thanks, I will try after this IFC patchwork, I will cc you.
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > ...
>