From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Rich Lane <rich.lane@bigswitch.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vhost: fix segfault on bad descriptor
	address.
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 08:54:08 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGSMBPMVQK610UgAs4GgWK_ykhdNzPb-sS=2AnLL0BtcWv-UcQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160706122446.GO26521@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
 <577F9328.1030901@samsung.com>
 <20160710131731.GS26521@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
 <20160711083825.GY26521@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
 <57836BE0.2070401@samsung.com> <20160711110503.GZ26521@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
 <5783876C.1050103@samsung.com> <20160712024305.GB26521@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
 <578485CC.8070809@samsung.com> <5785EEEF.3080400@samsung.com>
 <20160713084732.GH26521@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@samsung.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
 Huawei Xie <huawei.xie@intel.com>, Dyasly Sergey <s.dyasly@samsung.com>,
 Heetae Ahn <heetae82.ahn@samsung.com>, Jianfeng Tan <jianfeng.tan@intel.com>,
 Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
 Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
To: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-vk0-f52.google.com (mail-vk0-f52.google.com
 [209.85.213.52]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEA432BA2
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 13 Jul 2016 17:54:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-vk0-f52.google.com with SMTP id o63so71565018vkg.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 13 Jul 2016 08:54:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20160713084732.GH26521@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016, Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:34:07AM +0300, Ilya Maximets wrote:
> > This scenario fixed somehow, I agree. But this patch still needed to
> protect
> > vhost from untrusted VM, from malicious or buggy virtio application.
> > Maybe we could change the commit-message and resend this patch as a
> > security enhancement? What do you think?
>
> Indeed, but I'm a bit concerned about the performance regression found
> by Rich, yet I am not quite sure why it happens, though Rich claimed
> that it seems to be a problem related to compiler.


The workaround I suggested solves the performance regression. But even if
it hadn't, this is a security fix that should be merged regardless of the
performance impact.