From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCH repost] virtio: don't crash when device is buggy Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 01:24:05 +0300 Message-ID: <20120918222405.GB20285@redhat.com> References: <20120903143018.GA5353@redhat.com> <20120903202737.GD6181@redhat.com> <20120904135022.GI9805@redhat.com> <20120904185541.GB3602@redhat.com> <87k3w7j49i.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <20120916094427.GA24075@redhat.com> <87ehm1s28q.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87ehm1s28q.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Rusty Russell Cc: Sjur =?iso-8859-1?Q?Br=E6ndeland?= , Linus Walleij , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Amit Shah List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 01:57:17PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes: > > > Because of a sanity check in virtio_dev_remove, a buggy device can crash > > kernel. And in case of rproc it's userspace so it's not a good idea. > > We are unloading a driver so how bad can it be? > > Be less aggressive in handling this error: if it's a driver bug, > > warning once should be enough. > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin > > > > -- > > > > 3.6 material? > > I have already applied, this, but it's not for stable, since it's a > "theoretical bugfix". That check has been in there forever and noone > AFAIK has actually struck it. > > Cheers, > Rusty. Yes but can't malicious userspace trigger this with remoteproc? If yes it's not a question of whether anyone has struck it since people don't normally run malicious userspace :) -- MST