From: Marcel Apfelbaum <marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com>
To: SeokYeon Hwang <syeon.hwang@samsung.com>
Cc: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] pci: add checking whether the device is realized before unlinking the capability
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 15:28:32 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1403699312.20031.46.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140625120330.GA13856@redhat.com>
On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 15:03 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 06:59:08PM +0900, SeokYeon Hwang wrote:
> > In case of the unrealized "pdev", memory can be illegally accessed and corrupted.
> > Refer to device_unparent() in the commit 5c21ce77d7e5643089ceec556c0408445d017f32.
Hi,
Thank you for submitting the patch.
Can you please send to the list how to reproduce the issue?
Is this a regression? Before the above commit did it work?
> >
> > Change-Id: Iacb195a092c86d4c677ad0404582af104b2251ae
> > Signed-off-by: SeokYeon Hwang <syeon.hwang@samsung.com>
>
> Another case of qemu mailing list dropping patches :(
> I will bounce it now so people can see the original
> message.
>
>
> > ---
> > hw/pci/pci.c | 7 ++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/hw/pci/pci.c b/hw/pci/pci.c
> > index 49eca95..bb7f0c5 100644
> > --- a/hw/pci/pci.c
> > +++ b/hw/pci/pci.c
> > @@ -2056,7 +2056,12 @@ int pci_add_capability(PCIDevice *pdev, uint8_t cap_id,
> > /* Unlink capability from the pci config space. */
> > void pci_del_capability(PCIDevice *pdev, uint8_t cap_id, uint8_t size)
> > {
> > - uint8_t prev, offset = pci_find_capability_list(pdev, cap_id, &prev);
> > + uint8_t prev, offset;
> > + /* Check whether the device is realized or not */
> > + if (!pdev->qdev.realized) {
The 'qdev' field and 'realize' property are private, you should use one
of QOM's 'property_get' methods.
I am also concerned about adding the realize check here,
it seems too "deep" in implementation, seeing this checks everywhere
doesn't seem a good idea.
I think we should first understand the root cause and try making this
change in a higher level.
I hope I helped,
Marcel
> > + return;
> > + }
> > + offset = pci_find_capability_list(pdev, cap_id, &prev);
> > if (!offset)
> > return;
> > pdev->config[prev] = pdev->config[offset + PCI_CAP_LIST_NEXT];
> > --
> > 1.9.1
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-25 12:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-06-25 9:59 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] pci: add checking whether the device is realized before unlinking the capability SeokYeon Hwang
2014-06-25 12:03 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2014-06-25 12:28 ` Marcel Apfelbaum [this message]
2014-06-26 3:48 ` SeokYeon Hwang
2014-06-26 7:07 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2014-06-28 6:39 ` SeokYeon Hwang
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=1403699312.20031.46.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com \
--cc=marcel.a@redhat.com \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=syeon.hwang@samsung.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).