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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/8] virtio: Add boundary checks to virtio ring
To:     Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>, mst@redhat.com
Cc:     virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, hch@lst.de,
        m.szyprowski@samsung.com, robin.murphy@arm.com,
        iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, x86@kernel.org,
        sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com, jpoimboe@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20210603004133.4079390-1-ak@linux.intel.com>
 <20210603004133.4079390-3-ak@linux.intel.com>
 <4be00b3a-a15f-7fee-317b-ddabed3c1347@redhat.com>
 <ccf32bdc-a487-040b-5fe6-fcc8e71a57da@linux.intel.com>
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <6a5cae8f-0a29-8401-34b9-d9c977d11513@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Jun 2021 10:36:47 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ccf32bdc-a487-040b-5fe6-fcc8e71a57da@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Precedence: bulk


?? 2021/6/3 ????10:18, Andi Kleen д??:
>
>> It looks to me all the evils came from the fact that we depends on 
>> the descriptor ring.
>>
>> So the checks in this patch could is unnecessary if we don't even 
>> read from the descriptor ring which could be manipulated by the device.
>>
>> This is what my series tries to achieve:
>>
>> https://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg241825.html
>
> I would argue that you should boundary check in any case. It was 
> always a bug to not have boundary checks in such a data structure with 
> multiple users, trust or not.
>
> But yes your patch series is interesting and definitely makes sense 
> for TDX too.
>
> Best would be to have both I guess, and always check the boundaries 
> everywhere.


I agree but some of the checks are unnecessary in we do this series on 
top of my series.


>
> So what's the merge status of your series?


If I understand correctly from Michael, I will send a formal series and 
he will try to merge it for the 5.14.

Thanks


>
> -Andi
>
>