Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752558AbaKJKOV (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Nov 2014 05:14:21 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:48088 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751741AbaKJKOU (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Nov 2014 05:14:20 -0500 Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 12:14:10 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Al Viro Cc: David Miller , herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bcrl@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] inet: Add skb_copy_datagram_iter Message-ID: <20141110101410.GA19964@redhat.com> References: <20141105210745.GT7996@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20141105.165719.835728206041332333.davem@davemloft.net> <20141106032533.GU7996@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20141107.164859.951682597018909290.davem@redhat.com> <20141107221114.GB7996@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20141107234253.GE7996@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20141109211908.GF7996@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141109211908.GF7996@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 09:19:08PM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > [Michael Cc'd] > > On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 11:42:53PM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > > > I'll finish RTFS drivers/vhost and if it turns out to be OK I'll post the > > series moving those checks to the moment of copying iovec from userland, > > so that kernel-side we could always rely on ->msg_iov elements having been > > verified. > > Two questions: > 1) does sparc64 access_ok() need to differ for 32bit and 64bit tasks? > AFAICS, x86 and ppc just check that address is OK for 64bit process - > if a 32bit process passes the kernel an address that would be valid > for 64bit process, but not for 32bit one, we just get a pagefault in > __copy_from_user() and friends. No kernel objects are going to have > a virtual address in that range, so access_ok() doesn't bother preventing > such access attempts there... > > 2) shouldn't vhost_dev_cleanup() stop the worker thread before doing anything > else? > AFAICS, we do parts of vhost_dev teardown while the thread is > still running; granted, we keep dev->mm pinned down until after it stops > (or we would be _really_ screwed), but is it safe to do all those fput()s, etc. > while it's still running? Michael? Before invoking vhost_dev_cleanup, the caller for vhost-net (vhost_net_release) sets private data to NULL (using vhost_net_stop_vq) which guarantees thread will do nothing at all. vhost scsi does it in vhost_scsi_clear_endpoint. -- MST -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/