Jason Wang
2022-May-10 07:56 UTC
[PATCH v2] vringh: Fix loop descriptors check in the indirect cases
On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 3:54 PM Yongji Xie <xieyongji at bytedance.com> wrote:> > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 3:44 PM Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 6:08 PM Xie Yongji <xieyongji at bytedance.com> wrote: > > > > > > We should use size of descriptor chain to test loop condition > > > in the indirect case. And another statistical count is also introduced > > > for indirect descriptors to avoid conflict with the statistical count > > > of direct descriptors. > > > > > > Fixes: f87d0fbb5798 ("vringh: host-side implementation of virtio rings.") > > > Signed-off-by: Xie Yongji <xieyongji at bytedance.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng <fam.zheng at bytedance.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/vhost/vringh.c | 10 ++++++++-- > > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vringh.c b/drivers/vhost/vringh.c > > > index 14e2043d7685..eab55accf381 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/vhost/vringh.c > > > +++ b/drivers/vhost/vringh.c > > > @@ -292,7 +292,7 @@ __vringh_iov(struct vringh *vrh, u16 i, > > > int (*copy)(const struct vringh *vrh, > > > void *dst, const void *src, size_t len)) > > > { > > > - int err, count = 0, up_next, desc_max; > > > + int err, count = 0, indirect_count = 0, up_next, desc_max; > > > struct vring_desc desc, *descs; > > > struct vringh_range range = { -1ULL, 0 }, slowrange; > > > bool slow = false; > > > @@ -349,7 +349,12 @@ __vringh_iov(struct vringh *vrh, u16 i, > > > continue; > > > } > > > > > > - if (count++ == vrh->vring.num) { > > > + if (up_next == -1) > > > + count++; > > > + else > > > + indirect_count++; > > > + > > > + if (count > vrh->vring.num || indirect_count > desc_max) { > > > vringh_bad("Descriptor loop in %p", descs); > > > err = -ELOOP; > > > goto fail; > > > @@ -411,6 +416,7 @@ __vringh_iov(struct vringh *vrh, u16 i, > > > i = return_from_indirect(vrh, &up_next, > > > &descs, &desc_max); > > > slow = false; > > > + indirect_count = 0; > > > > Do we need to reset up_next to -1 here? > > > > It will be reset to -1 in return_from_indirect().Right. Then Acked-by: Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> Thanks> > Thanks, > Yongji >