Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 4 Feb 2021 09:02:23 +0100
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
To:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
Cc:     virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        Xie Yongji <xieyongji@bytedance.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        Laurent Vivier <lvivier@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@nvidia.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 08/10] vdpa: add vdpa simulator for block device
Message-ID: <20210204080223.rkc7zieq34ofs5ku@steredhat>
References: <20210128144127.113245-1-sgarzare@redhat.com>
 <20210128144127.113245-9-sgarzare@redhat.com>
 <20210202093412.GA243557@stefanha-x1.localdomain>
 <20210202154950.g3rclpigyaigzfgo@steredhat>
 <20210203164551.GG74271@stefanha-x1.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210203164551.GG74271@stefanha-x1.localdomain>
Precedence: bulk

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