On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 3:47 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 4:12 PM Xie Yongji <xieyongji@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > We should use size of descriptor chain to check the maximum
> > number of consumed descriptors in indirect case.
>
> AFAIK, it's a guard for loop descriptors.
>
Yes, but for indirect descriptors, we know the size of the descriptor
chain. Should we use it to test loop condition rather than using
virtqueue size?
> > And the
> > statistical counts should also be reset to zero each time
> > we get an indirect descriptor.
>
> What might happen if we don't have this patch?
>
Then we can't handle the case that one request includes multiple
indirect descriptors. Although I never see this kind of case now, the
spec doesn't forbid it.
> >
> > Fixes: f87d0fbb5798 ("vringh: host-side implementation of virtio rings.")
> > Signed-off-by: Xie Yongji <xieyongji@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng <fam.zheng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/vhost/vringh.c | 4 +++-
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vringh.c b/drivers/vhost/vringh.c
> > index 14e2043d7685..c1810b77a05e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vhost/vringh.c
> > +++ b/drivers/vhost/vringh.c
> > @@ -344,12 +344,13 @@ __vringh_iov(struct vringh *vrh, u16 i,
> > addr = (void *)(long)(a + range.offset);
> > err = move_to_indirect(vrh, &up_next, &i, addr, &desc,
> > &descs, &desc_max);
> > + count = 0;
>
> Then it looks to me we can detect a loop indirect descriptor chain?
>
I think so.
Thanks,
Yongji
