| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <ba2hivznnjcyeftr7ch7gvrwjvkimx5u2t2anv7wv7n7yb3j36@dbagnaylvu6o>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 10:00:25 +0200
From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To: Amery Hung <ameryhung@...il.com>
Cc: stefanha@...hat.com, mst@...hat.com, jasowang@...hat.com,
xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, kys@...rosoft.com, haiyangz@...rosoft.com, wei.liu@...nel.org,
decui@...rosoft.com, bryantan@...are.com, vdasa@...are.com, pv-drivers@...are.com,
dan.carpenter@...aro.org, simon.horman@...igine.com, oxffffaa@...il.com,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, bobby.eshleman@...edance.com, jiang.wang@...edance.com,
amery.hung@...edance.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 04/14] af_vsock: generalize bind table
functions
On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 11:52:54AM GMT, Amery Hung wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 7:40 AM Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 09:25:45PM GMT, Amery Hung wrote:
>> >From: Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@...edance.com>
>> >
>> >This commit makes the bind table management functions in vsock usable
>> >for different bind tables. Future work will introduce a new table for
>> >datagrams to avoid address collisions, and these functions will be used
>> >there.
>> >
>> >Signed-off-by: Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@...edance.com>
>> >---
>> > net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>> > 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>> >
>> >diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
>> >index acc15e11700c..d571be9cdbf0 100644
>> >--- a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
>> >+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
>> >@@ -232,11 +232,12 @@ static void __vsock_remove_connected(struct vsock_sock *vsk)
>> > sock_put(&vsk->sk);
>> > }
>> >
>> >-static struct sock *__vsock_find_bound_socket(struct sockaddr_vm *addr)
>> >+static struct sock *vsock_find_bound_socket_common(struct sockaddr_vm *addr,
>> >+ struct list_head *bind_table)
>> > {
>> > struct vsock_sock *vsk;
>> >
>> >- list_for_each_entry(vsk, vsock_bound_sockets(addr), bound_table) {
>> >+ list_for_each_entry(vsk, bind_table, bound_table) {
>> > if (vsock_addr_equals_addr(addr, &vsk->local_addr))
>> > return sk_vsock(vsk);
>> >
>> >@@ -249,6 +250,11 @@ static struct sock *__vsock_find_bound_socket(struct sockaddr_vm *addr)
>> > return NULL;
>> > }
>> >
>> >+static struct sock *__vsock_find_bound_socket(struct sockaddr_vm *addr)
>> >+{
>> >+ return vsock_find_bound_socket_common(addr, vsock_bound_sockets(addr));
>> >+}
>> >+
>> > static struct sock *__vsock_find_connected_socket(struct sockaddr_vm *src,
>> > struct sockaddr_vm *dst)
>> > {
>> >@@ -671,12 +677,18 @@ static void vsock_pending_work(struct work_struct *work)
>> >
>> > /**** SOCKET OPERATIONS ****/
>> >
>> >-static int __vsock_bind_connectible(struct vsock_sock *vsk,
>> >- struct sockaddr_vm *addr)
>> >+static int vsock_bind_common(struct vsock_sock *vsk,
>> >+ struct sockaddr_vm *addr,
>> >+ struct list_head *bind_table,
>> >+ size_t table_size)
>> > {
>> > static u32 port;
>> > struct sockaddr_vm new_addr;
>> >
>> >+ if (WARN_ONCE(table_size < VSOCK_HASH_SIZE,
>> >+ "table size too small, may cause overflow"))
>> >+ return -EINVAL;
>> >+
>>
>> I'd add this in another commit.
>>
>> > if (!port)
>> > port = get_random_u32_above(LAST_RESERVED_PORT);
>> >
>> >@@ -692,7 +704,8 @@ static int __vsock_bind_connectible(struct
>> >vsock_sock *vsk,
>> >
>> > new_addr.svm_port = port++;
>> >
>> >- if (!__vsock_find_bound_socket(&new_addr)) {
>> >+ if (!vsock_find_bound_socket_common(&new_addr,
>> >+ &bind_table[VSOCK_HASH(addr)])) {
>>
>> Can we add a macro for `&bind_table[VSOCK_HASH(addr)])` ?
>>
>
>Definitely. I will add the following macro:
>
>#define vsock_bound_sockets_in_table(bind_table, addr) \
> (&bind_table[VSOCK_HASH(addr)])
yeah.
>
>> > found = true;
>> > break;
>> > }
>> >@@ -709,7 +722,8 @@ static int __vsock_bind_connectible(struct vsock_sock *vsk,
>> > return -EACCES;
>> > }
>> >
>> >- if (__vsock_find_bound_socket(&new_addr))
>> >+ if (vsock_find_bound_socket_common(&new_addr,
>> >+ &bind_table[VSOCK_HASH(addr)]))
>> > return -EADDRINUSE;
>> > }
>> >
>> >@@ -721,11 +735,17 @@ static int __vsock_bind_connectible(struct vsock_sock *vsk,
>> > * by AF_UNIX.
>> > */
>> > __vsock_remove_bound(vsk);
>> >- __vsock_insert_bound(vsock_bound_sockets(&vsk->local_addr), vsk);
>> >+ __vsock_insert_bound(&bind_table[VSOCK_HASH(&vsk->local_addr)], vsk);
>> >
>> > return 0;
>> > }
>> >
>> >+static int __vsock_bind_connectible(struct vsock_sock *vsk,
>> >+ struct sockaddr_vm *addr)
>> >+{
>> >+ return vsock_bind_common(vsk, addr, vsock_bind_table, VSOCK_HASH_SIZE + 1);
>>
>> What about using ARRAY_SIZE(x) ?
>>
>> BTW we are using that size just to check it, but all the arrays we use
>> are statically allocated, so what about a compile time check like
>> BUILD_BUG_ON()?
>>
>
>I will remove the table_size check you mentioned earlier and the
>argument here as the arrays are allocated statically like you
>mentioned.
>
>If you think this check may be a good addition, I can add a
>BUILD_BUG_ON() in the new vsock_bound_sockets_in_table() macro.
If you want to add it, we need to do it in a separate commit. But since
we already have so many changes and both arrays are statically allocated
in the same file, IMHO we can avoid the check.
Stefano
Powered by blists - more mailing lists