Linux Virtualization - Jan 2021 - [PATCH] VMCI: Enforce queuepair max size for IOCTL_VMCI_QUEUEPAIR_ALLOC

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 04:18:53AM -0800, Jorgen Hansen
wrote:
> When create the VMCI queue pair tracking data structures on the host
> side, the IOCTL for creating the VMCI queue pair didn't validate
> the queue pair size parameters. This change adds checks for this.
> 
> This avoids a memory allocation issue in qp_host_alloc_queue, as
> reported by nslusarek at gmx.net. The check in qp_host_alloc_queue
> has also been updated to enforce the maximum queue pair size
> as defined by VMCI_MAX_GUEST_QP_MEMORY.
> 
> The fix has been verified using sample code supplied by
> nslusarek at gmx.net.
> 
> Reported-by: nslusarek at gmx.net
> Reviewed-by: Vishnu Dasa <vdasa at vmware.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jorgen Hansen <jhansen at vmware.com>
> ---
>  drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/vmci_queue_pair.c | 12 ++++++++----
>  include/linux/vmw_vmci_defs.h           |  4 ++--
>  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
Hi,

This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.  You have sent him
a patch that has triggered this response.  He used to manually respond
to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
created.  Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
kernel tree.

You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
as indicated below:

- You sent multiple patches, yet no indication of which ones should be
  applied in which order.  Greg could just guess, but if you are
  receiving this email, he guessed wrong and the patches didn't apply.
  Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the
  kernel file, Documentation/SubmittingPatches for a description of how
  to do this so that Greg has a chance to apply these correctly.


If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
from other developers.

thanks,

greg k-h's patch email bot

On 11 Jan 2021, at 13:46, Greg KH <gregkh at linuxfoundation.org>
wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 04:18:53AM -0800, Jorgen Hansen wrote:
>> When create the VMCI queue pair tracking data structures on the host
>> side, the IOCTL for creating the VMCI queue pair didn't validate
>> the queue pair size parameters. This change adds checks for this.
>> 
>> This avoids a memory allocation issue in qp_host_alloc_queue, as
>> reported by nslusarek at gmx.net. The check in qp_host_alloc_queue
>> has also been updated to enforce the maximum queue pair size
>> as defined by VMCI_MAX_GUEST_QP_MEMORY.
>> 
>> The fix has been verified using sample code supplied by
>> nslusarek at gmx.net.
>> 
>> Reported-by: nslusarek at gmx.net
>> Reviewed-by: Vishnu Dasa <vdasa at vmware.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Jorgen Hansen <jhansen at vmware.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/vmci_queue_pair.c | 12 ++++++++----
>> include/linux/vmw_vmci_defs.h           |  4 ++--
>> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.  You have sent him
> a patch that has triggered this response.  He used to manually respond
> to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
> writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
> created.  Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
> in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
> kernel tree.
> 
> You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
> as indicated below:
> 
> - You sent multiple patches, yet no indication of which ones should be
>  applied in which order.  Greg could just guess, but if you are
>  receiving this email, he guessed wrong and the patches didn't apply.
>  Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in
the
>  kernel file, Documentation/SubmittingPatches for a description of how
>  to do this so that Greg has a chance to apply these correctly.
> 
> 
> If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
> how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
> Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
> from other developers.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h's patch email bot
Hi,

The patches are independent and should be able to apply in any order;
I didn?t see any problems when applying them in different orders locally.

I?m hesitant to provide the patches as a series of patches, since one of
them:
 VMCI: Use set_page_dirty_lock() when unregistering guest memory
is marked as fixing an original checkin, and should be considered for
backporting, whereas the others are either not important to backport
or rely on other recent changes. However, if formatting them as a
series of misc fixes is preferred, I?ll do that.

Thanks,
Jorgen

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 02:05:56PM +0000, Jorgen Hansen
wrote:
> On 11 Jan 2021, at 13:46, Greg KH <gregkh at linuxfoundation.org>
wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 04:18:53AM -0800, Jorgen Hansen wrote:
> >> When create the VMCI queue pair tracking data structures on the
host
> >> side, the IOCTL for creating the VMCI queue pair didn't
validate
> >> the queue pair size parameters. This change adds checks for this.
> >> 
> >> This avoids a memory allocation issue in qp_host_alloc_queue, as
> >> reported by nslusarek at gmx.net. The check in qp_host_alloc_queue
> >> has also been updated to enforce the maximum queue pair size
> >> as defined by VMCI_MAX_GUEST_QP_MEMORY.
> >> 
> >> The fix has been verified using sample code supplied by
> >> nslusarek at gmx.net.
> >> 
> >> Reported-by: nslusarek at gmx.net
> >> Reviewed-by: Vishnu Dasa <vdasa at vmware.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jorgen Hansen <jhansen at vmware.com>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/vmci_queue_pair.c | 12 ++++++++----
> >> include/linux/vmw_vmci_defs.h           |  4 ++--
> >> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.  You have sent
him
> > a patch that has triggered this response.  He used to manually respond
> > to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
> > writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
> > created.  Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
> > in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the
Linux
> > kernel tree.
> > 
> > You are receiving this message because of the following common
error(s)
> > as indicated below:
> > 
> > - You sent multiple patches, yet no indication of which ones should be
> >  applied in which order.  Greg could just guess, but if you are
> >  receiving this email, he guessed wrong and the patches didn't
apply.
> >  Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch
format" in the
> >  kernel file, Documentation/SubmittingPatches for a description of how
> >  to do this so that Greg has a chance to apply these correctly.
> > 
> > 
> > If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions
about
> > how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email
and
> > Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
> > from other developers.
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > greg k-h's patch email bot
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The patches are independent and should be able to apply in any order;
> I didn?t see any problems when applying them in different orders locally.
> 
> I?m hesitant to provide the patches as a series of patches, since one of
> them:
>  VMCI: Use set_page_dirty_lock() when unregistering guest memory
> is marked as fixing an original checkin, and should be considered for
> backporting, whereas the others are either not important to backport
> or rely on other recent changes. However, if formatting them as a
> series of misc fixes is preferred, I?ll do that.
If one patch is wanting to be merged now, for 5.11-final, great, don't
send it in a middle of series of other patches that are not, how am I
supposed to know any of this?

Please send them in the proper order, and as individual series for
different releases, if relevant, again, otherwise how am I supposed to
know what to do with them?

thanks,

greg k-h