Hi Michael

        Thanks for your fast reply.

        As the following code, the 2nd branch of iov_iter_advance() does not 
check if i->count < size, when this happens, i->count -= size may cause len 
exceed INT_MAX, and then total_len exceed INT_MAX.

        handle_tx_copy() ->
                get_tx_bufs(..., &len, ...) ->
                        init_iov_iter() ->
                                iov_iter_advance(iter, ...)     // has 3 
branches: 
                                        pipe_advance()          // has checked 
the size: if (unlikely(i->count < size)) size = i->count;
                                        iov_iter_is_discard() ...       // no 
check.
                                        iterate_and_advance()   //has checked: 
if (unlikely(i->count < n)) n = i->count;
                                return iov_iter_count(iter);

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael S. Tsirkin [mailto:m...@redhat.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2019 4:07 PM
To: wangxu (AE) <wangx...@huawei.com>
Cc: jasow...@redhat.com; k...@vger.kernel.org; 
virtualizat...@lists.linux-foundation.org; net...@vger.kernel.org; 
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vhost: It's better to use size_t for the 3rd parameter of 
vhost_exceeds_weight()

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 03:46:41PM +0800, wangxu wrote:
> From: Wang Xu <wangx...@huawei.com>
> 
> Caller of vhost_exceeds_weight(..., total_len) in drivers/vhost/net.c 
> usually pass size_t total_len, which may be affected by rx/tx package.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wang Xu <wangx...@huawei.com>


Puts a bit more pressure on the register file ...
why do we care? Is there some way that it can exceed INT_MAX?

> ---
>  drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 4 ++--
>  drivers/vhost/vhost.h | 7 ++++---
>  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c index 
> 36ca2cf..159223a 100644
> --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> @@ -412,7 +412,7 @@ static void vhost_dev_free_iovecs(struct vhost_dev 
> *dev)  }
>  
>  bool vhost_exceeds_weight(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq,
> -                       int pkts, int total_len)
> +                       int pkts, size_t total_len)
>  {
>       struct vhost_dev *dev = vq->dev;
>  
> @@ -454,7 +454,7 @@ static size_t vhost_get_desc_size(struct 
> vhost_virtqueue *vq,
>  
>  void vhost_dev_init(struct vhost_dev *dev,
>                   struct vhost_virtqueue **vqs, int nvqs,
> -                 int iov_limit, int weight, int byte_weight)
> +                 int iov_limit, int weight, size_t byte_weight)
>  {
>       struct vhost_virtqueue *vq;
>       int i;
> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.h b/drivers/vhost/vhost.h index 
> e9ed272..8d80389d 100644
> --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.h
> +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.h
> @@ -172,12 +172,13 @@ struct vhost_dev {
>       wait_queue_head_t wait;
>       int iov_limit;
>       int weight;
> -     int byte_weight;
> +     size_t byte_weight;
>  };
>  


This just costs extra memory, and value is never large, so I don't think this 
matters.

> -bool vhost_exceeds_weight(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq, int pkts, int 
> total_len);
> +bool vhost_exceeds_weight(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq, int pkts,
> +                       size_t total_len);
>  void vhost_dev_init(struct vhost_dev *, struct vhost_virtqueue **vqs,
> -                 int nvqs, int iov_limit, int weight, int byte_weight);
> +                 int nvqs, int iov_limit, int weight, size_t byte_weight);
>  long vhost_dev_set_owner(struct vhost_dev *dev);  bool 
> vhost_dev_has_owner(struct vhost_dev *dev);  long 
> vhost_dev_check_owner(struct vhost_dev *);
> --
> 1.8.5.6

Reply via email to