Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] Drivers: hv: vmbus: Add vmbus_requestor data structure for VMBus hardening

[Andrea Parri]

On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 05:29:11PM +0000, Michael Kelley wrote:
> From: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 12:54 AM
> > 
> > > > @@ -300,6 +303,22 @@ int hv_ringbuffer_write(struct vmbus_channel *channel,
> > > >  						     kv_list[i].iov_len);
> > > >  	}
> > > >
> > > > +	/*
> > > > +	 * Allocate the request ID after the data has been copied into the
> > > > +	 * ring buffer.  Once this request ID is allocated, the completion
> > > > +	 * path could find the data and free it.
> > > > +	 */
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (desc->flags == VMBUS_DATA_PACKET_FLAG_COMPLETION_REQUESTED) {
> > > > +		rqst_id = vmbus_next_request_id(&channel->requestor, requestid);
> > > > +		if (rqst_id == VMBUS_RQST_ERROR) {
> > > > +			pr_err("No request id available\n");
> > > > +			return -EAGAIN;
> > > > +		}
> > > > +	}
> > > > +	desc = hv_get_ring_buffer(outring_info) + old_write;
> > > > +	desc->trans_id = (rqst_id == VMBUS_NO_RQSTOR) ? requestid : rqst_id;
> > > > +
> > >
> > > This is a nit, but the above would be clearer to me if written like this:
> > >
> > > 	flags = desc->flags;
> > > 	if (flags == VMBUS_DATA_PACKET_FLAG_COMPLETION_REQUESTED) {
> > > 		rqst_id = vmbus_next_request_id(&channel->requestor, requestid);
> > > 		if (rqst_id == VMBUS_RQST_ERROR) {
> > > 			pr_err("No request id available\n");
> > > 			return -EAGAIN;
> > > 		}
> > > 	} else {
> > > 		rqst_id = requestid;
> > > 	}
> > > 	desc = hv_get_ring_buffer(outring_info) + old_write;
> > > 	desc->trans_id = rqst_id;
> > >
> > > The value of the flags field controls what will be used as the value for the
> > > rqst_id.  Having another test to see which value will be used as the trans_id
> > > somehow feels a bit redundant.  And then rqst_id doesn't have to be initialized.
> > 
> > Agreed, will apply in the next version.
> > 
> 
> In an offline conversation, Andrea has pointed out that my proposed changes
> don't work.  After a second look, I'll agreed that Andrea's code is the best that
> can be done, so my comments can be ignored.

Thanks for the confirmation, Michael.  So, I plan to keep this patch as
is for the next submission of the series (to be submitted shortly...).

Thanks,
  Andrea