From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marcelo Tosatti Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/6] kvm: Re-introduce memslots->nmemslots Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 21:58:48 -0200 Message-ID: <20121206235848.GA30582@amt.cnet> References: <20121203231912.3661.57179.stgit@bling.home> <20121203233936.3661.69261.stgit@bling.home> <20121205212629.GD20260@amt.cnet> <1354748573.3224.63.camel@bling.home> <20121206014507.GA9890@amt.cnet> <1354765897.3224.71.camel@bling.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, gleb@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Alex Williamson Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1354765897.3224.71.camel@bling.home> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 08:51:37PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > id_to_memslot seems like a good place to catch all the users since > > > that's the only way to get a slot from a slot id after the array is > > > sorted. We need to check both is the slot in bounds (EINVAL), but also > > > is it allocated (ENOENT). id_to_memslot could both of these if we > > > wanted to switch it to ERR_PTR. Thanks, > > > > > > Alex > > > > There should never be a reference to a slot out of bounds by KVM itself > > (BUG_ON). Only userspace can attempt a reference to such slot. > > If I understand correctly, you're saying this last chunk is unique > because kvm_get_dirty_log() is an internal interface and the test should > be restricted to callers from userspace interfaces, namely > kvm_vm_ioctl_get_dirty_log(). That sounds reasonable; book3s_pr seems > to be the only caller that relies on kvm_get_dirty_log() validating the > slot. Thanks, > > Alex Yep - so you can move the check to such userspace interfaces, and bug on on WARN otherwise (in id_to_memslot). Does that make sense??