Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 1 Nov 2018 19:55:53 -0400
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        bijan.mottahedeh@oracle.com, gedwards@ddn.com, joe@perches.com,
        lenaic@lhuard.fr, liang.z.li@intel.com, mhocko@kernel.org,
        mhocko@suse.com, stefanha@redhat.com, wei.w.wang@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PULL] vhost: cleanups and fixes
Message-ID: <20181101193818-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <20181101171938-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <CAGXu5jJ0HgV2qN=wohEgro6ixqXHOHBTsvS5a9Dcpz8gxVo3bA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wicvws38JqzVF6oNEZ0jGzP6RecR6yAGtyzX3AkoJ321g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wicvws38JqzVF6oNEZ0jGzP6RecR6yAGtyzX3AkoJ321g@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 04:06:19PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 4:00 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > +       memset(&rsp, 0, sizeof(rsp));
> > +       rsp.response = VIRTIO_SCSI_S_FUNCTION_REJECTED;
> > +       resp = vq->iov[out].iov_base;
> > +       ret = __copy_to_user(resp, &rsp, sizeof(rsp));
> >
> > Is it actually safe to trust that iov_base has passed an earlier
> > access_ok() check here? Why not just use copy_to_user() instead?
> 
> Good point.
> 
> We really should have removed those double-underscore things ages ago.

Well in case of vhost there are a bunch of reasons to keep them.

One is that all access_ok checks take place
way earlier in context of the owner task. Result is saved
and then used for access repeatedly. Skipping reding access_ok twice
did seem to give a small speedup in the past.
In fact I am looking
into switching some of the uses to unsafe_put_user/unsafe_get_user
after doing something like barrier_nospec after the
access_ok checks. Seems to give a measureable speedup.


Another is that the double underscore things actually can be done
in softirq context if you do preempt_disable/preempt_enable.
IIUC Jason's looking into using that to cut down the latency
for when the access is very small.

> Also, apart from the address, what about the size? Wouldn't it be
> better to use copy_to_iter() rather than implement it badly by hand?
> 
>                Linus

Generally size is checked when we retrieve the iov but I will recheck
this case and reply here.