On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 02:05:56PM +0000, Jorgen Hansen wrote: > On 11 Jan 2021, at 13:46, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 04:18:53AM -0800, Jorgen Hansen wrote: > >> When create the VMCI queue pair tracking data structures on the host > >> side, the IOCTL for creating the VMCI queue pair didn't validate > >> the queue pair size parameters. This change adds checks for this. > >> > >> This avoids a memory allocation issue in qp_host_alloc_queue, as > >> reported by nslusarek@xxxxxxx. The check in qp_host_alloc_queue > >> has also been updated to enforce the maximum queue pair size > >> as defined by VMCI_MAX_GUEST_QP_MEMORY. > >> > >> The fix has been verified using sample code supplied by > >> nslusarek@xxxxxxx. > >> > >> Reported-by: nslusarek@xxxxxxx > >> Reviewed-by: Vishnu Dasa <vdasa@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Signed-off-by: Jorgen Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/vmci_queue_pair.c | 12 ++++++++---- > >> include/linux/vmw_vmci_defs.h | 4 ++-- > >> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > Hi, > > > > This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman. You have sent him > > a patch that has triggered this response. He used to manually respond > > to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept > > writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was > > created. Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem > > in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux > > kernel tree. > > > > You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s) > > as indicated below: > > > > - You sent multiple patches, yet no indication of which ones should be > > applied in which order. Greg could just guess, but if you are > > receiving this email, he guessed wrong and the patches didn't apply. > > Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the > > kernel file, Documentation/SubmittingPatches for a description of how > > to do this so that Greg has a chance to apply these correctly. > > > > > > If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about > > how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and > > Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received > > from other developers. > > > > thanks, > > > > greg k-h's patch email bot > > Hi, > > The patches are independent and should be able to apply in any order; > I didn’t see any problems when applying them in different orders locally. > > I’m hesitant to provide the patches as a series of patches, since one of > them: > VMCI: Use set_page_dirty_lock() when unregistering guest memory > is marked as fixing an original checkin, and should be considered for > backporting, whereas the others are either not important to backport > or rely on other recent changes. However, if formatting them as a > series of misc fixes is preferred, I’ll do that. If one patch is wanting to be merged now, for 5.11-final, great, don't send it in a middle of series of other patches that are not, how am I supposed to know any of this? Please send them in the proper order, and as individual series for different releases, if relevant, again, otherwise how am I supposed to know what to do with them? thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
