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:   Fri, 27 Aug 2021 11:00:21 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Xianting Tian <xianting.tian@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     amit@kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH] virtio_console: protect max_nr_ports to avoid
 invalid value
Message-ID: <YSippdinb67QYU6K@kroah.com>
References: <20210820075219.202404-1-xianting.tian@linux.alibaba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210820075219.202404-1-xianting.tian@linux.alibaba.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 03:52:19PM +0800, Xianting Tian wrote:
> In theory untrusted remote host can pass a big or overflow value
> of max_nr_ports to guest, it may cause guest system consumes
> a lot of memory when create vqs and other impacts.

How can you have a untrusted host?  Can't they do a lot worse things
than just this?

> 
> Add the protection to guarantee max_nr_ports to get a safe value.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Xianting Tian <xianting.tian@linux.alibaba.com>
> ---
>  drivers/char/virtio_console.c | 5 +++++
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/char/virtio_console.c b/drivers/char/virtio_console.c
> index 7eaf303a7..bba985c81 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/virtio_console.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/virtio_console.c
> @@ -29,6 +29,8 @@
>  
>  #define is_rproc_enabled IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_REMOTEPROC)
>  
> +#define MAX_NR_PORTS	MAX_NR_HVC_CONSOLES

How was this value picked?

thanks,

greg k-h