Re: [PATCH RFC v2 08/10] vdpa: add vdpa simulator for block device

[Stefano Garzarella]

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