On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 01:26:29PM +0800, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> Commit d65026c6c62e7d9616c8ceb5a53b68bcdc050525 ("vhost: validate log
> when IOTLB is enabled") introduced a regression. The logic was
> originally:
>
> if (vq->iotlb)
> return 1;
> return A && B;
>
> After the patch the short-circuit logic for A was inverted:
>
> if (A || vq->iotlb)
> return A;
> return B;
>
> This patch fixes the regression by rewriting the checks in the obvious
> way, no longer returning A when vq->iotlb is non-NULL (which is hard to
> understand).
>
> Reported-by: syzbot+65a84dde0214b0387ccd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@xxxxxxxxxx>
This patch only makes sense after patch 2/2 is applied.
Otherwise the logic seems reversed below.
Can you pls squash these two?
> ---
> drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 8 +++++---
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> index 5320039671b7..93fd0c75b0d8 100644
> --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> @@ -1244,10 +1244,12 @@ static int vq_log_access_ok(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq,
> /* Caller should have vq mutex and device mutex */
> int vhost_vq_access_ok(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq)
> {
> - int ret = vq_log_access_ok(vq, vq->log_base);
> + if (!vq_log_access_ok(vq, vq->log_base))
> + return 0;
>
> - if (ret || vq->iotlb)
> - return ret;
> + /* Access validation occurs at prefetch time with IOTLB */
> + if (vq->iotlb)
> + return 1;
>
> return vq_access_ok(vq, vq->num, vq->desc, vq->avail, vq->used);
> }
> --
> 2.14.3
