Re: [PATCH 02/10] Drivers: hv: utils: run polling callback always in interrupt context

[Vitaly Kuznetsov]

Olaf Hering <olaf@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Thu, Oct 08, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>
>> > @@ -295,9 +288,6 @@ static int fcopy_on_msg(void *msg, int len)
>> >  	if (fcopy_transaction.state == HVUTIL_DEVICE_INIT)
>> >  		return fcopy_handle_handshake(*val);
>> >
>> > -	if (fcopy_transaction.state != HVUTIL_USERSPACE_REQ)
>> > -		return -EINVAL;
>> > -
>> 
>> This particular change seems unrelated and I'm unsure it's safe to
>> remove this check. It is meant to protect against daemon screwing the
>> protocol and writing to the device when it wasn't requested for an
>> action. It is correct to propagate -EINVAL in this case. Or am I missing
>> something and the check is redundant now?
>
> What can happen if there is an odd write request?

I think we don't want to propagate misbehaving daemon's data to the
host -- let's cut it here. E.g. imagine there is no communication going
on and daemon starts writing something to the device. In case we remove
the check we'll be doing fcopy_respond_to_host() for each daemon's write
flooding the host.

> If there is a timeout
> scheduled some return value will be sent to the host. Then the state is
> set to RESET and eventually vmbus_recvpacket will receive something.
> That something will be processed and passed to the daemon.
>
> If there was no timeout scheduled the write will just return.

yes, but after doing fcopy_respond_to_host(). I'd suggest we leave the
check in place, better safe than sorry.

-- 
  Vitaly
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/