Re: [Xen-devel] Ping: [PATCH] x86/memshr: properly check grant references

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 09:17:43AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 22.11.16 at 17:13, <tamas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 3:12 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> >> >>> On 14.11.16 at 11:34, <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > They need to be range checked against the current table limit in any
> >> > event.
> >> >
> >> > Reported-by: Huawei PSIRT <psirt@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >
> >> > Move the code to where it belongs, eliminating a number of duplicate
> >> > definitions. Add locking. Produce proper error codes, and consume them
> >> > instead of making one up. Check grant type. Convert parameter types at
> >> > once.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Tamas? (The minor fix needed to address Andrew's reply doesn't seem
> >> to warrant sending out a v2.)
> > 
> > 
> >> > ---
> >> > Note that likely there's more work needed subsequently: The grant isn't
> >> > being marked in use for the duration of the use of the GFN. But I'll
> >> > leave that to someone actually knowing how to properly to test this.
> >>
> >>
> > Hi Jan,
> > unfortunately I don't have a good way to test this either as I never used
> > memsharing with grefs before. The above comment about the grant not being
> > marked for in-use makes me wonder whether this is a regression from this
> > patch or whether that just was never the case.
> 
> This was never the case. I wouldn't dare to submit a patch
> knowingly breaking something.
> 
> > Either way, I can see this
> > being an issue only if memory is being removed by hot-plugging, which AFAIK
> > is not a supported scenario anyway. The rest of the patch is fairly
> > mechanical, so:
> > 
> > Acked-by: Tamas K Lengyel <tamas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Release-acked-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel