From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: Vasiliy Kulikov <segooon@gmail.com>,
"kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org"
<kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <Jeremy.Fitzhardinge@citrix.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>,
"virtualization@lists.osdl.org" <virtualization@lists.osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: xenfs: privcmd: check put_user() return code
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 17:52:59 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4CCB09FB.8050906@goop.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1288374270.8069.41.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On 10/29/2010 10:44 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 18:18 +0100, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> On 10/28/2010 04:39 AM, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
>>> put_user() may fail. In this case propagate error code from
>>> privcmd_ioctl_mmap_batch().
>> Thanks for looking at this. I'm in two minds about this; the existing
>> logic is such that these put_users can only fail if something else has
>> already failed and its returning an error. I guess it would be useful
>> to get an EFAULT if you've got a problem writing back the results.
>>
>> IanC, any opinion?
> Not a strong one.
>
> Perhaps what we really want in this case is for traverse_pages to return
> the total number of callback failures it encountered rather than
> aborting after the first failure?
>
> On the other hand you are correct that gather_array() has already
> touched all the pages which we are going to be touching here so how
> likely is a new failure at this point anyway?
I could think of two cases: the array is mapped RO, so only the
writeback fails, or someone changes the mapping under our feet from
another thread.
J
> Ian.
>
>> Thanks,
>> J
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Vasiliy Kulikov <segooon@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>> Compile tested.
>>>
>>> drivers/xen/xenfs/privcmd.c | 8 ++------
>>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/xen/xenfs/privcmd.c b/drivers/xen/xenfs/privcmd.c
>>> index f80be7f..2eb04c8 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/xen/xenfs/privcmd.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/xen/xenfs/privcmd.c
>>> @@ -266,9 +266,7 @@ static int mmap_return_errors(void *data, void *state)
>>> xen_pfn_t *mfnp = data;
>>> struct mmap_batch_state *st = state;
>>>
>>> - put_user(*mfnp, st->user++);
>>> -
>>> - return 0;
>>> + return put_user(*mfnp, st->user++);
>>> }
>>>
>>> static struct vm_operations_struct privcmd_vm_ops;
>>> @@ -323,10 +321,8 @@ static long privcmd_ioctl_mmap_batch(void __user *udata)
>>> up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
>>>
>>> if (state.err > 0) {
>>> - ret = 0;
>>> -
>>> state.user = m.arr;
>>> - traverse_pages(m.num, sizeof(xen_pfn_t),
>>> + ret = traverse_pages(m.num, sizeof(xen_pfn_t),
>>> &pagelist,
>>> mmap_return_errors, &state);
>>> }
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: Vasiliy Kulikov <segooon@gmail.com>,
"kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org"
<kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <Jeremy.Fitzhardinge@citrix.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>,
"virtualization@lists.osdl.org" <virtualization@lists.osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: xenfs: privcmd: check put_user() return code
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 10:52:59 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4CCB09FB.8050906@goop.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1288374270.8069.41.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On 10/29/2010 10:44 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 18:18 +0100, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> On 10/28/2010 04:39 AM, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
>>> put_user() may fail. In this case propagate error code from
>>> privcmd_ioctl_mmap_batch().
>> Thanks for looking at this. I'm in two minds about this; the existing
>> logic is such that these put_users can only fail if something else has
>> already failed and its returning an error. I guess it would be useful
>> to get an EFAULT if you've got a problem writing back the results.
>>
>> IanC, any opinion?
> Not a strong one.
>
> Perhaps what we really want in this case is for traverse_pages to return
> the total number of callback failures it encountered rather than
> aborting after the first failure?
>
> On the other hand you are correct that gather_array() has already
> touched all the pages which we are going to be touching here so how
> likely is a new failure at this point anyway?
I could think of two cases: the array is mapped RO, so only the
writeback fails, or someone changes the mapping under our feet from
another thread.
J
> Ian.
>
>> Thanks,
>> J
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Vasiliy Kulikov <segooon@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>> Compile tested.
>>>
>>> drivers/xen/xenfs/privcmd.c | 8 ++------
>>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/xen/xenfs/privcmd.c b/drivers/xen/xenfs/privcmd.c
>>> index f80be7f..2eb04c8 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/xen/xenfs/privcmd.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/xen/xenfs/privcmd.c
>>> @@ -266,9 +266,7 @@ static int mmap_return_errors(void *data, void *state)
>>> xen_pfn_t *mfnp = data;
>>> struct mmap_batch_state *st = state;
>>>
>>> - put_user(*mfnp, st->user++);
>>> -
>>> - return 0;
>>> + return put_user(*mfnp, st->user++);
>>> }
>>>
>>> static struct vm_operations_struct privcmd_vm_ops;
>>> @@ -323,10 +321,8 @@ static long privcmd_ioctl_mmap_batch(void __user *udata)
>>> up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
>>>
>>> if (state.err > 0) {
>>> - ret = 0;
>>> -
>>> state.user = m.arr;
>>> - traverse_pages(m.num, sizeof(xen_pfn_t),
>>> + ret = traverse_pages(m.num, sizeof(xen_pfn_t),
>>> &pagelist,
>>> mmap_return_errors, &state);
>>> }
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-29 17:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-28 11:39 [PATCH] xen: xenfs: privcmd: check put_user() return code Vasiliy Kulikov
2010-10-28 11:39 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2010-10-29 17:18 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-10-29 17:18 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-10-29 17:44 ` Ian Campbell
2010-10-29 17:44 ` Ian Campbell
2010-10-29 17:52 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge [this message]
2010-10-29 17:52 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-10-29 17:57 ` Ian Campbell
2010-10-29 17:57 ` Ian Campbell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4CCB09FB.8050906@goop.org \
--to=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=Ian.Campbell@eu.citrix.com \
--cc=Jeremy.Fitzhardinge@citrix.com \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=segooon@gmail.com \
--cc=virtualization@lists.osdl.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.