Message ID | 945CA011AD5F084CBEA3E851C0AB28894B86D176@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
>>> On 28.03.16 at 05:33, <quan.xu@intel.com> wrote: > On March 18, 2016 1:15am, <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote: >> >>> On 17.03.16 at 07:54, <quan.xu@intel.com> wrote: >> > --- a/xen/common/grant_table.c >> > +++ b/xen/common/grant_table.c >> > @@ -932,8 +932,9 @@ __gnttab_map_grant_ref( >> > { >> > nr_gets++; >> > (void)get_page(pg, rd); >> > - if ( !(op->flags & GNTMAP_readonly) ) >> > - get_page_type(pg, PGT_writable_page); >> > + if ( !(op->flags & GNTMAP_readonly) && >> > + !get_page_type(pg, PGT_writable_page) ) >> > + goto could_not_pin; >> >> This needs explanation, as it doesn't look related to what your actual goal is: If >> an error was possible here, I think this would be a security issue. However, as >> also kind of documented by the explicitly ignored return value from get_page(), >> it is my understanding there here we only obtain an _extra_ reference. >> > > For this point, I inferred from: > map_vcpu_info() > { > ... > if ( !get_page_type(page, PGT_writable_page) ) > { > put_page(page); > return -EINVAL; > } > ... > } > , then for get_page_type(), I think the return value: > 0 -- error, > 1-- right. > > So if get_page_type() is failed, we should goto could_not_pin. Did you read my reply at all? The explanation I'm expecting here is why error checking is all of the sudden needed _at all_. > btw, there is another issue in the call path: > iommu_{,un}map_page() -- __get_page_type() -- get_page_type()--- > > > I tried to return iommu_{,un}map_page() error code in __get_page_type(), is > it right? If the operation got fully rolled back - yes. Whether fully rolling back is feasible there though is - see the respective discussion - an open question. >> > --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/x86/iommu.c >> > +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/x86/iommu.c >> > @@ -104,7 +104,11 @@ int arch_iommu_populate_page_table(struct >> domain *d) >> > this_cpu(iommu_dont_flush_iotlb) = 0; >> > >> > if ( !rc ) >> > - iommu_iotlb_flush_all(d); >> > + { >> > + rc = iommu_iotlb_flush_all(d); >> > + if ( rc ) >> > + iommu_teardown(d); >> > + } >> > else if ( rc != -ERESTART ) >> > iommu_teardown(d); >> >> Why can't you just use the existing call to iommu_teardown(), by simply > deleting >> the "else"? >> > > Just check it, could I modify it as below: > --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/x86/iommu.c > +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/x86/iommu.c > @@ -105,7 +105,8 @@ int arch_iommu_populate_page_table(struct domain *d) > > if ( !rc ) > iommu_iotlb_flush_all(d); > - else if ( rc != -ERESTART ) > + > + if ( rc != -ERESTART ) > iommu_teardown(d); Clearly not - not only are you losing the return value of iommu_iotlb_flush_all() now, you would then also call iommu_teardown() in the "success" case. My comment was related to code structure, yet you seem to have taken it literally. Jan
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/x86/iommu.c +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/x86/iommu.c @@ -105,7 +105,8 @@ int arch_iommu_populate_page_table(struct domain *d) if ( !rc ) iommu_iotlb_flush_all(d); - else if ( rc != -ERESTART ) + + if ( rc != -ERESTART ) iommu_teardown(d);