[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v6 04/12] xen: add basic hypervisor filesystem support



On 04.03.20 16:21, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 04.03.2020 16:14, Jürgen Groß wrote:
On 04.03.20 16:07, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 04.03.2020 15:39, Jürgen Groß wrote:
On 04.03.20 14:03, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 04.03.2020 13:00, Jürgen Groß wrote:
On 03.03.20 17:59, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 26.02.2020 13:46, Juergen Gross wrote:
--- /dev/null
+++ b/xen/common/hypfs.c
@@ -0,0 +1,349 @@
+/******************************************************************************
+ *
+ * hypfs.c
+ *
+ * Simple sysfs-like file system for the hypervisor.
+ */
+
+#include <xen/err.h>
+#include <xen/guest_access.h>
+#include <xen/hypercall.h>
+#include <xen/hypfs.h>
+#include <xen/lib.h>
+#include <xen/rwlock.h>
+#include <public/hypfs.h>
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
+#include <compat/hypfs.h>
+CHECK_hypfs_direntry;
+#undef CHECK_hypfs_direntry
+#define CHECK_hypfs_direntry struct xen_hypfs_direntry

I'm struggling to see why you need this #undef and #define.

Without those I get:

In file included from /home/gross/xen/unstable/xen/include/compat/xen.h:3:0,
                     from /home/gross/xen/unstable/xen/include/xen/shared.h:6,
                     from /home/gross/xen/unstable/xen/include/xen/sched.h:8,
                     from /home/gross/xen/unstable/xen/include/asm/paging.h:29,
                     from
/home/gross/xen/unstable/xen/include/asm/guest_access.h:1,
                     from
/home/gross/xen/unstable/xen/include/xen/guest_access.h:1,
                     from hypfs.c:9:
/home/gross/xen/unstable/xen/include/xen/compat.h:134:32: error:
redefinition of ‘__checkFstruct_hypfs_direntry__flags’
     #define CHECK_NAME_(k, n, tag) __check ## tag ## k ## _ ## n
                                    ^
/home/gross/xen/unstable/xen/include/xen/compat.h:166:34: note: in
definition of macro ‘CHECK_FIELD_COMMON_’
     static inline int __maybe_unused name(k xen_ ## n *x, k compat_ ## n *c) \
                                      ^~~~
/home/gross/xen/unstable/xen/include/xen/compat.h:176:28: note: in
expansion of macro ‘CHECK_NAME_’
         CHECK_FIELD_COMMON_(k, CHECK_NAME_(k, n ## __ ## f, F), n, f)
                                ^~~~~~~~~~~
/home/gross/xen/unstable/xen/include/compat/xlat.h:775:5: note: in
expansion of macro ‘CHECK_FIELD_’
         CHECK_FIELD_(struct, hypfs_direntry, flags); \
         ^~~~~~~~~~~~
/home/gross/xen/unstable/xen/include/compat/xlat.h:782:5: note: in
expansion of macro ‘CHECK_hypfs_direntry’
         CHECK_hypfs_direntry; \
         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
hypfs.c:19:1: note: in expansion of macro ‘CHECK_hypfs_dirlistentry’
     CHECK_hypfs_dirlistentry;
     ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/home/gross/xen/unstable/xen/include/xen/compat.h:134:32: note: previous
definition of ‘__checkFstruct_hypfs_direntry__flags’ was here
     #define CHECK_NAME_(k, n, tag) __check ## tag ## k ## _ ## n
                                    ^
/home/gross/xen/unstable/xen/include/xen/compat.h:166:34: note: in
definition of macro ‘CHECK_FIELD_COMMON_’
     static inline int __maybe_unused name(k xen_ ## n *x, k compat_ ## n *c) \
                                      ^~~~
/home/gross/xen/unstable/xen/include/xen/compat.h:176:28: note: in
expansion of macro ‘CHECK_NAME_’
         CHECK_FIELD_COMMON_(k, CHECK_NAME_(k, n ## __ ## f, F), n, f)
                                ^~~~~~~~~~~
/home/gross/xen/unstable/xen/include/compat/xlat.h:775:5: note: in
expansion of macro ‘CHECK_FIELD_’
         CHECK_FIELD_(struct, hypfs_direntry, flags); \
         ^~~~~~~~~~~~
hypfs.c:18:1: note: in expansion of macro ‘CHECK_hypfs_direntry’
     CHECK_hypfs_direntry;

Which suggests to me that the explicit CHECK_hypfs_direntry invocation
is unneeded, as it's getting verified as part of the invocation of
CHECK_hypfs_dirlistentry.

Ah, right. This is working. Will change.


+int hypfs_write_leaf(struct hypfs_entry_leaf *leaf,
+                     XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) uaddr, unsigned long ulen)
+{
+    char *buf;
+    int ret;
+
+    if ( ulen > leaf->e.size )
+        return -ENOSPC;
+
+    if ( leaf->e.type != XEN_HYPFS_TYPE_STRING &&
+         leaf->e.type != XEN_HYPFS_TYPE_BLOB && ulen != leaf->e.size )
+        return -EDOM;

Why the exception of string and blob? My concern about the
meaning of a partially written entry (without its size having
changed) remains.

It is perfectly valid to write a shorter string into a character
array. I could drop the blob here, but in the end I think allowing
for a blob to change the size should be fine.

But shouldn't this then also adjust the recorded size?

No, this is the max size of the buffer (you can have a look at patch 9
where the size is set to the provided space for custom and string
parameters).

If I'm not mistaken it is hypfs_read_leaf() which processes read
requests for strings. Yet that copies entry->size bytes, not the
potentially smaller strlen()-bounded payload. Things would be

There is no risk of leaking problematic data here.

I didn't think of leaks, but rather of consumers looking at the
size and strlen() and getting confused about the mismatch.

I think telling the maximum possible write length is mandatory.

So either I can add a comment to the header saying that for strings
and blobs the length is the maximum value and the content is to be
self-descriptive regarding its true length (which is the case for
strings due to the terminating 0 byte), or I need two size fields:
one for the actual size and one for the maximum allowed size for
writes (this could then replace the writable flag with "0" for "not
writable").


Juergen


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.