On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 05:02:07PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 04:00:20PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 02:52:32PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > kvm_add_routing_entry makes an attempt to
> > > zero-initialize any new routing entry.
> > > However, it fails to initialize padding
> > > within the u field of the structure
> > > kvm_irq_routing_entry.
> > >
> > > Other functions like kvm_irqchip_update_msi_route
> > > also fail to initialize the padding field in
> > > kvm_irq_routing_entry.
> > >
> > > While mostly harmless, this would prevent us from
> > > reusing these fields for something useful in
> > > the future.
> > >
> > The fact that kernel does not check them for zero value is what will
> > prevents us from doing so.
>
> Well we can not change kernel now (it would break userspace)
> but we can start zeroing everything in userspace.
>
> Also, checkers like coverity might get confused by this.
>
> Finally, simpler assignment and comparison make it worth it,
> don't they?
>
I am not at all against the patch! Just pointing out a mistake in the
commit message.
> > > It's better to just make sure all input is initialized.
> > >
> > > Once it is, we can also drop complex field by field assignment and just
> > > do the simple *a = *b to update a route entry.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > kvm-all.c | 19 +++++++------------
> > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kvm-all.c b/kvm-all.c
> > > index 405480e..f119ce1 100644
> > > --- a/kvm-all.c
> > > +++ b/kvm-all.c
> > > @@ -1006,11 +1006,8 @@ static void kvm_add_routing_entry(KVMState *s,
> > > }
> > > n = s->irq_routes->nr++;
> > > new = &s->irq_routes->entries[n];
> > > - memset(new, 0, sizeof(*new));
> > > - new->gsi = entry->gsi;
> > > - new->type = entry->type;
> > > - new->flags = entry->flags;
> > > - new->u = entry->u;
> > > +
> > > + *new = *entry;
> > >
> > > set_gsi(s, entry->gsi);
> > >
> > > @@ -1029,9 +1026,7 @@ static int kvm_update_routing_entry(KVMState *s,
> > > continue;
> > > }
> > >
> > > - entry->type = new_entry->type;
> > > - entry->flags = new_entry->flags;
> > > - entry->u = new_entry->u;
> > > + *entry = *new_entry;
> > >
> > > kvm_irqchip_commit_routes(s);
> > >
> > > @@ -1043,7 +1038,7 @@ static int kvm_update_routing_entry(KVMState *s,
> > >
> > > void kvm_irqchip_add_irq_route(KVMState *s, int irq, int irqchip, int pin)
> > > {
> > > - struct kvm_irq_routing_entry e;
> > > + struct kvm_irq_routing_entry e = {};
> > >
> > > assert(pin < s->gsi_count);
> > >
> > > @@ -1156,7 +1151,7 @@ int kvm_irqchip_send_msi(KVMState *s, MSIMessage msg)
> > > return virq;
> > > }
> > >
> > > - route = g_malloc(sizeof(KVMMSIRoute));
> > > + route = g_malloc0(sizeof(KVMMSIRoute));
> > > route->kroute.gsi = virq;
> > > route->kroute.type = KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_MSI;
> > > route->kroute.flags = 0;
> > > @@ -1177,7 +1172,7 @@ int kvm_irqchip_send_msi(KVMState *s, MSIMessage msg)
> > >
> > > int kvm_irqchip_add_msi_route(KVMState *s, MSIMessage msg)
> > > {
> > > - struct kvm_irq_routing_entry kroute;
> > > + struct kvm_irq_routing_entry kroute = {};
> > > int virq;
> > >
> > > if (!kvm_gsi_routing_enabled()) {
> > > @@ -1203,7 +1198,7 @@ int kvm_irqchip_add_msi_route(KVMState *s, MSIMessage msg)
> > >
> > > int kvm_irqchip_update_msi_route(KVMState *s, int virq, MSIMessage msg)
> > > {
> > > - struct kvm_irq_routing_entry kroute;
> > > + struct kvm_irq_routing_entry kroute = {};
> > >
> > > if (!kvm_irqchip_in_kernel()) {
> > > return -ENOSYS;
> > > --
> > > MST
> >
> > --
> > Gleb.
--
Gleb.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
