lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC v2 08/10] vdpa: add vdpa simulator for block device
On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 04:45:51PM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 04:49:50PM +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 09:34:12AM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 03:41:25PM +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>> > > +static void vdpasim_blk_work(struct work_struct *work)
>> > > +{
>> > > + struct vdpasim *vdpasim = container_of(work, struct vdpasim, work);
>> > > + u8 status = VIRTIO_BLK_S_OK;
>> > > + int i;
>> > > +
>> > > + spin_lock(&vdpasim->lock);
>> > > +
>> > > + if (!(vdpasim->status & VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_DRIVER_OK))
>> > > + goto out;
>> > > +
>> > > + for (i = 0; i < VDPASIM_BLK_VQ_NUM; i++) {
>> > > + struct vdpasim_virtqueue *vq = &vdpasim->vqs[i];
>> > > +
>> > > + if (!vq->ready)
>> > > + continue;
>> > > +
>> > > + while (vringh_getdesc_iotlb(&vq->vring, &vq->out_iov,
>> > > + &vq->in_iov, &vq->head,
>> > > + GFP_ATOMIC) > 0) {
>> > > + int write;
>> > > +
>> > > + vq->in_iov.i = vq->in_iov.used - 1;
>> > > + write = vringh_iov_push_iotlb(&vq->vring, &vq->in_iov,
>> > > + &status, 1);
>> > > + if (write <= 0)
>> > > + break;
>> >
>> > This code looks fragile:
>> >
>> > 1. Relying on unsigned underflow and the while loop in
>> > vringh_iov_push_iotlb() to handle the case where in_iov.used == 0 is
>> > risky and could break.
>> >
>> > 2. Does this assume that the last in_iov element has size 1? For
>> > example, the guest driver may send a single "in" iovec with size 513
>> > when reading 512 bytes (with an extra byte for the request status).
>> >
>> > Please validate inputs fully, even in test/development code, because
>> > it's likely to be copied by others when writing production code (or
>> > deployed in production by unsuspecting users) :).
>>
>> Perfectly agree on that, so I addressed these things, also following your
>> review on the previous version, on the next patch of this series:
>> "vdpa_sim_blk: implement ramdisk behaviour".
>>
>> Do you think should I move these checks in this patch?
>>
>> I did this to leave Max credit for this patch and add more code to emulate a
>> ramdisk in later patches.
>
>You could update the commit description so it's clear that input
>validation is missing and will be added in the next commit.

I'll do it.

Thanks,
Stefano

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-04 09:04    [W:0.103 / U:0.172 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site