All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Virtio-fs] [PATCH] virtiofsd: Don't assume header layout
@ 2021-03-04 17:45 Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git)
  2021-03-05 16:06 ` Vivek Goyal
  2021-03-08 16:14 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git) @ 2021-03-04 17:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: virtio-fs, stefanha; +Cc: vgoyal

From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>

virtiofsd incorrectly assumed a fixed set of header layout in the virt
queue; assuming that the fuse and write headers were conveniently
separated from the data;  the spec doesn't allow us to take that
convenience, so fix it up to deal with it the hard way.

Signed-off-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com>
---
 tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c | 84 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c b/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c
index 523ee64fb7..55e2e057ec 100644
--- a/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c
+++ b/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c
@@ -129,18 +129,55 @@ static void fv_panic(VuDev *dev, const char *err)
  * Copy from an iovec into a fuse_buf (memory only)
  * Caller must ensure there is space
  */
-static void copy_from_iov(struct fuse_buf *buf, size_t out_num,
-                          const struct iovec *out_sg)
+static size_t copy_from_iov(struct fuse_buf *buf, size_t out_num,
+                            const struct iovec *out_sg,
+                            size_t max)
 {
     void *dest = buf->mem;
+    size_t copied = 0;
 
-    while (out_num) {
+    while (out_num && max) {
         size_t onelen = out_sg->iov_len;
+        onelen = MIN(onelen, max);
         memcpy(dest, out_sg->iov_base, onelen);
         dest += onelen;
+        copied += onelen;
         out_sg++;
         out_num--;
+        max -= onelen;
     }
+
+    return copied;
+}
+
+/*
+ * Skip 'skip' bytes in the iov; 'sg_1stindex' is set as
+ * the index for the 1st iovec to read data from, and
+ * 'sg_1stskip' is the number of bytes to skip in that entry.
+ *
+ * Returns True if there are at least 'skip' bytes in the iovec
+ *
+ */
+static bool skip_iov(const struct iovec *sg, size_t sg_size,
+                     size_t skip,
+                     size_t *sg_1stindex, size_t *sg_1stskip)
+{
+    size_t vec;
+
+    for (vec = 0; vec < sg_size; vec++) {
+        if (sg[vec].iov_len > skip) {
+            *sg_1stskip = skip;
+            *sg_1stindex = vec;
+
+            return true;
+        }
+
+        skip -= sg[vec].iov_len;
+    }
+
+    *sg_1stindex = vec;
+    *sg_1stskip = 0;
+    return skip == 0;
 }
 
 /*
@@ -505,14 +542,14 @@ static void fv_queue_worker(gpointer data, gpointer user_data)
                  elem->index);
         assert(0); /* TODO */
     }
-    /* Copy just the first element and look at it */
-    copy_from_iov(&fbuf, 1, out_sg);
+    /* Copy just the fuse_in_header and look at it */
+    copy_from_iov(&fbuf, out_num, out_sg,
+                  sizeof(struct fuse_in_header));
 
     pbufv = NULL; /* Compiler thinks an unitialised path */
-    if (out_num > 2 &&
-        out_sg[0].iov_len == sizeof(struct fuse_in_header) &&
-        ((struct fuse_in_header *)fbuf.mem)->opcode == FUSE_WRITE &&
-        out_sg[1].iov_len == sizeof(struct fuse_write_in)) {
+    if (((struct fuse_in_header *)fbuf.mem)->opcode == FUSE_WRITE &&
+        out_len >= (sizeof(struct fuse_in_header) +
+                    sizeof(struct fuse_write_in))) {
         /*
          * For a write we don't actually need to copy the
          * data, we can just do it straight out of guest memory
@@ -521,15 +558,13 @@ static void fv_queue_worker(gpointer data, gpointer user_data)
          */
         fuse_log(FUSE_LOG_DEBUG, "%s: Write special case\n", __func__);
 
-        /* copy the fuse_write_in header afte rthe fuse_in_header */
-        fbuf.mem += out_sg->iov_len;
-        copy_from_iov(&fbuf, 1, out_sg + 1);
-        fbuf.mem -= out_sg->iov_len;
-        fbuf.size = out_sg[0].iov_len + out_sg[1].iov_len;
+        fbuf.size = copy_from_iov(&fbuf, out_num, out_sg,
+                                  sizeof(struct fuse_in_header) +
+                                  sizeof(struct fuse_write_in));
 
         /* Allocate the bufv, with space for the rest of the iov */
         pbufv = malloc(sizeof(struct fuse_bufvec) +
-                       sizeof(struct fuse_buf) * (out_num - 2));
+                       sizeof(struct fuse_buf) * out_num);
         if (!pbufv) {
             fuse_log(FUSE_LOG_ERR, "%s: pbufv malloc failed\n",
                     __func__);
@@ -540,24 +575,31 @@ static void fv_queue_worker(gpointer data, gpointer user_data)
         pbufv->count = 1;
         pbufv->buf[0] = fbuf;
 
-        size_t iovindex, pbufvindex;
-        iovindex = 2; /* 2 headers, separate iovs */
+        size_t iovindex, pbufvindex, skip;
         pbufvindex = 1; /* 2 headers, 1 fusebuf */
 
+        skip_iov(out_sg, out_num,
+                 sizeof(struct fuse_in_header) +
+                 sizeof(struct fuse_write_in),
+                 &iovindex, &skip);
+
         for (; iovindex < out_num; iovindex++, pbufvindex++) {
             pbufv->count++;
             pbufv->buf[pbufvindex].pos = ~0; /* Dummy */
             pbufv->buf[pbufvindex].flags = 0;
             pbufv->buf[pbufvindex].mem = out_sg[iovindex].iov_base;
             pbufv->buf[pbufvindex].size = out_sg[iovindex].iov_len;
+
+            if (skip) {
+                pbufv->buf[pbufvindex].mem += skip;
+                pbufv->buf[pbufvindex].size -= skip;
+                skip = 0;
+            }
         }
     } else {
         /* Normal (non fast write) path */
 
-        /* Copy the rest of the buffer */
-        fbuf.mem += out_sg->iov_len;
-        copy_from_iov(&fbuf, out_num - 1, out_sg + 1);
-        fbuf.mem -= out_sg->iov_len;
+        copy_from_iov(&fbuf, out_num, out_sg, se->bufsize);
         fbuf.size = out_len;
 
         /* TODO! Endianness of header */
-- 
2.29.2


^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [Virtio-fs] [PATCH] virtiofsd: Don't assume header layout
  2021-03-04 17:45 [Virtio-fs] [PATCH] virtiofsd: Don't assume header layout Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git)
@ 2021-03-05 16:06 ` Vivek Goyal
  2021-03-11 14:22   ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
  2021-03-08 16:14 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Vivek Goyal @ 2021-03-05 16:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git); +Cc: virtio-fs

On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 05:45:36PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git) wrote:
> From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>
> 
> virtiofsd incorrectly assumed a fixed set of header layout in the virt
> queue; assuming that the fuse and write headers were conveniently
> separated from the data;  the spec doesn't allow us to take that
> convenience, so fix it up to deal with it the hard way.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com>
> ---
>  tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c | 84 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c b/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c
> index 523ee64fb7..55e2e057ec 100644
> --- a/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c
> +++ b/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c
> @@ -129,18 +129,55 @@ static void fv_panic(VuDev *dev, const char *err)
>   * Copy from an iovec into a fuse_buf (memory only)
>   * Caller must ensure there is space
>   */
> -static void copy_from_iov(struct fuse_buf *buf, size_t out_num,
> -                          const struct iovec *out_sg)
> +static size_t copy_from_iov(struct fuse_buf *buf, size_t out_num,
> +                            const struct iovec *out_sg,
> +                            size_t max)
>  {
>      void *dest = buf->mem;
> +    size_t copied = 0;
>  
> -    while (out_num) {
> +    while (out_num && max) {
>          size_t onelen = out_sg->iov_len;
> +        onelen = MIN(onelen, max);
>          memcpy(dest, out_sg->iov_base, onelen);
>          dest += onelen;
> +        copied += onelen;
>          out_sg++;
>          out_num--;
> +        max -= onelen;
>      }
> +
> +    return copied;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Skip 'skip' bytes in the iov; 'sg_1stindex' is set as
> + * the index for the 1st iovec to read data from, and
> + * 'sg_1stskip' is the number of bytes to skip in that entry.
> + *
> + * Returns True if there are at least 'skip' bytes in the iovec
> + *
> + */
> +static bool skip_iov(const struct iovec *sg, size_t sg_size,
> +                     size_t skip,
> +                     size_t *sg_1stindex, size_t *sg_1stskip)
> +{
> +    size_t vec;
> +
> +    for (vec = 0; vec < sg_size; vec++) {
> +        if (sg[vec].iov_len > skip) {
> +            *sg_1stskip = skip;
> +            *sg_1stindex = vec;
> +
> +            return true;
> +        }
> +
> +        skip -= sg[vec].iov_len;
> +    }
> +
> +    *sg_1stindex = vec;
> +    *sg_1stskip = 0;
> +    return skip == 0;
>  }
>  
>  /*
> @@ -505,14 +542,14 @@ static void fv_queue_worker(gpointer data, gpointer user_data)
>                   elem->index);
>          assert(0); /* TODO */
>      }
> -    /* Copy just the first element and look at it */
> -    copy_from_iov(&fbuf, 1, out_sg);
> +    /* Copy just the fuse_in_header and look at it */
> +    copy_from_iov(&fbuf, out_num, out_sg,
> +                  sizeof(struct fuse_in_header));
>  
>      pbufv = NULL; /* Compiler thinks an unitialised path */
> -    if (out_num > 2 &&
> -        out_sg[0].iov_len == sizeof(struct fuse_in_header) &&
> -        ((struct fuse_in_header *)fbuf.mem)->opcode == FUSE_WRITE &&
> -        out_sg[1].iov_len == sizeof(struct fuse_write_in)) {
> +    if (((struct fuse_in_header *)fbuf.mem)->opcode == FUSE_WRITE &&
> +        out_len >= (sizeof(struct fuse_in_header) +
> +                    sizeof(struct fuse_write_in))) {
>          /*
>           * For a write we don't actually need to copy the
>           * data, we can just do it straight out of guest memory
> @@ -521,15 +558,13 @@ static void fv_queue_worker(gpointer data, gpointer user_data)
>           */
>          fuse_log(FUSE_LOG_DEBUG, "%s: Write special case\n", __func__);
>  
> -        /* copy the fuse_write_in header afte rthe fuse_in_header */

Hi Dave,

I was scratching my head that why FUSE_WRITE path is being handled
differently than rest of the requests. Then I happened to look
at description of fuse_session_process_buf_int() and that expects
a certain layout for FUSE_WRITE requests. Thats why...

> -        fbuf.mem += out_sg->iov_len;
> -        copy_from_iov(&fbuf, 1, out_sg + 1);
> -        fbuf.mem -= out_sg->iov_len;
> -        fbuf.size = out_sg[0].iov_len + out_sg[1].iov_len;
> +        fbuf.size = copy_from_iov(&fbuf, out_num, out_sg,
> +                                  sizeof(struct fuse_in_header) +
> +                                  sizeof(struct fuse_write_in));

You are not trusting guest that it can change iovecs. So is it a good
idea to copy fuse_in_header again. I mean we copied once, looked at
it and now are copying again. It is possible that guest changed it
and our assumption of this being a WRITE request might be broken now.


>  
>          /* Allocate the bufv, with space for the rest of the iov */
>          pbufv = malloc(sizeof(struct fuse_bufvec) +
> -                       sizeof(struct fuse_buf) * (out_num - 2));
> +                       sizeof(struct fuse_buf) * out_num);
>          if (!pbufv) {
>              fuse_log(FUSE_LOG_ERR, "%s: pbufv malloc failed\n",
>                      __func__);
> @@ -540,24 +575,31 @@ static void fv_queue_worker(gpointer data, gpointer user_data)
>          pbufv->count = 1;
>          pbufv->buf[0] = fbuf;
>  
> -        size_t iovindex, pbufvindex;
> -        iovindex = 2; /* 2 headers, separate iovs */
> +        size_t iovindex, pbufvindex, skip;

How about renaming "skip" to say "iov_byte_skip" or something like that.
Too many variables are in there. It just makes it clear to skip few
bytes in iov. Just a suggestion. Feel free to ignore if you are not
convinced.

>          pbufvindex = 1; /* 2 headers, 1 fusebuf */
>  
> +        skip_iov(out_sg, out_num,
> +                 sizeof(struct fuse_in_header) +
> +                 sizeof(struct fuse_write_in),
> +                 &iovindex, &skip);
> +

How about looking at return code of skip_iov(). Just in case guest
has changed it by now.

May be a safer practice will be to always first copy out_sg in a
temporary buffer and then we should parse it and organize in
pbufv/bufv for fuse consumption. But I guess that adds one extra
copy and it might not be worth it. So may be solve it when it
creates a real problem.

Thanks
Vivek

>          for (; iovindex < out_num; iovindex++, pbufvindex++) {
>              pbufv->count++;
>              pbufv->buf[pbufvindex].pos = ~0; /* Dummy */
>              pbufv->buf[pbufvindex].flags = 0;
>              pbufv->buf[pbufvindex].mem = out_sg[iovindex].iov_base;
>              pbufv->buf[pbufvindex].size = out_sg[iovindex].iov_len;
> +
> +            if (skip) {
> +                pbufv->buf[pbufvindex].mem += skip;
> +                pbufv->buf[pbufvindex].size -= skip;
> +                skip = 0;
> +            }
>          }
>      } else {
>          /* Normal (non fast write) path */
>  
> -        /* Copy the rest of the buffer */
> -        fbuf.mem += out_sg->iov_len;
> -        copy_from_iov(&fbuf, out_num - 1, out_sg + 1);
> -        fbuf.mem -= out_sg->iov_len;
> +        copy_from_iov(&fbuf, out_num, out_sg, se->bufsize);
>          fbuf.size = out_len;
>  
>          /* TODO! Endianness of header */
> -- 
> 2.29.2
> 


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [Virtio-fs] [PATCH] virtiofsd: Don't assume header layout
  2021-03-04 17:45 [Virtio-fs] [PATCH] virtiofsd: Don't assume header layout Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git)
  2021-03-05 16:06 ` Vivek Goyal
@ 2021-03-08 16:14 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
  2021-03-11 14:58   ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Hajnoczi @ 2021-03-08 16:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git); +Cc: virtio-fs, vgoyal

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6549 bytes --]

On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 05:45:36PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git) wrote:
> From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>
> 
> virtiofsd incorrectly assumed a fixed set of header layout in the virt
> queue; assuming that the fuse and write headers were conveniently
> separated from the data;  the spec doesn't allow us to take that
> convenience, so fix it up to deal with it the hard way.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com>
> ---
>  tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c | 84 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c b/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c
> index 523ee64fb7..55e2e057ec 100644
> --- a/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c
> +++ b/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c
> @@ -129,18 +129,55 @@ static void fv_panic(VuDev *dev, const char *err)
>   * Copy from an iovec into a fuse_buf (memory only)
>   * Caller must ensure there is space
>   */
> -static void copy_from_iov(struct fuse_buf *buf, size_t out_num,
> -                          const struct iovec *out_sg)
> +static size_t copy_from_iov(struct fuse_buf *buf, size_t out_num,
> +                            const struct iovec *out_sg,
> +                            size_t max)
>  {
>      void *dest = buf->mem;
> +    size_t copied = 0;
>  
> -    while (out_num) {
> +    while (out_num && max) {
>          size_t onelen = out_sg->iov_len;
> +        onelen = MIN(onelen, max);
>          memcpy(dest, out_sg->iov_base, onelen);
>          dest += onelen;
> +        copied += onelen;
>          out_sg++;
>          out_num--;
> +        max -= onelen;
>      }
> +
> +    return copied;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Skip 'skip' bytes in the iov; 'sg_1stindex' is set as
> + * the index for the 1st iovec to read data from, and
> + * 'sg_1stskip' is the number of bytes to skip in that entry.
> + *
> + * Returns True if there are at least 'skip' bytes in the iovec
> + *
> + */
> +static bool skip_iov(const struct iovec *sg, size_t sg_size,
> +                     size_t skip,
> +                     size_t *sg_1stindex, size_t *sg_1stskip)
> +{
> +    size_t vec;
> +
> +    for (vec = 0; vec < sg_size; vec++) {
> +        if (sg[vec].iov_len > skip) {
> +            *sg_1stskip = skip;
> +            *sg_1stindex = vec;
> +
> +            return true;
> +        }
> +
> +        skip -= sg[vec].iov_len;
> +    }
> +
> +    *sg_1stindex = vec;
> +    *sg_1stskip = 0;
> +    return skip == 0;
>  }

This comment does not match the code: "Returns True if there are at
least 'skip' bytes in the iovec". When skip == iov_length(sg, sg_size)
the function returns false.

>  
>  /*
> @@ -505,14 +542,14 @@ static void fv_queue_worker(gpointer data, gpointer user_data)
>                   elem->index);
>          assert(0); /* TODO */
>      }
> -    /* Copy just the first element and look at it */
> -    copy_from_iov(&fbuf, 1, out_sg);
> +    /* Copy just the fuse_in_header and look at it */
> +    copy_from_iov(&fbuf, out_num, out_sg,
> +                  sizeof(struct fuse_in_header));
>  
>      pbufv = NULL; /* Compiler thinks an unitialised path */
> -    if (out_num > 2 &&
> -        out_sg[0].iov_len == sizeof(struct fuse_in_header) &&
> -        ((struct fuse_in_header *)fbuf.mem)->opcode == FUSE_WRITE &&
> -        out_sg[1].iov_len == sizeof(struct fuse_write_in)) {
> +    if (((struct fuse_in_header *)fbuf.mem)->opcode == FUSE_WRITE &&
> +        out_len >= (sizeof(struct fuse_in_header) +
> +                    sizeof(struct fuse_write_in))) {
>          /*
>           * For a write we don't actually need to copy the
>           * data, we can just do it straight out of guest memory
> @@ -521,15 +558,13 @@ static void fv_queue_worker(gpointer data, gpointer user_data)
>           */
>          fuse_log(FUSE_LOG_DEBUG, "%s: Write special case\n", __func__);
>  
> -        /* copy the fuse_write_in header afte rthe fuse_in_header */
> -        fbuf.mem += out_sg->iov_len;
> -        copy_from_iov(&fbuf, 1, out_sg + 1);
> -        fbuf.mem -= out_sg->iov_len;
> -        fbuf.size = out_sg[0].iov_len + out_sg[1].iov_len;
> +        fbuf.size = copy_from_iov(&fbuf, out_num, out_sg,
> +                                  sizeof(struct fuse_in_header) +
> +                                  sizeof(struct fuse_write_in));
>  
>          /* Allocate the bufv, with space for the rest of the iov */
>          pbufv = malloc(sizeof(struct fuse_bufvec) +
> -                       sizeof(struct fuse_buf) * (out_num - 2));
> +                       sizeof(struct fuse_buf) * out_num);
>          if (!pbufv) {
>              fuse_log(FUSE_LOG_ERR, "%s: pbufv malloc failed\n",
>                      __func__);
> @@ -540,24 +575,31 @@ static void fv_queue_worker(gpointer data, gpointer user_data)
>          pbufv->count = 1;
>          pbufv->buf[0] = fbuf;
>  
> -        size_t iovindex, pbufvindex;
> -        iovindex = 2; /* 2 headers, separate iovs */
> +        size_t iovindex, pbufvindex, skip;
>          pbufvindex = 1; /* 2 headers, 1 fusebuf */
>  
> +        skip_iov(out_sg, out_num,
> +                 sizeof(struct fuse_in_header) +
> +                 sizeof(struct fuse_write_in),
> +                 &iovindex, &skip);
> +
>          for (; iovindex < out_num; iovindex++, pbufvindex++) {

What happens when iov_length(out_sg, out_num) == sizeof(struct
fuse_in_header) + sizeof(struct fuse_write_in)? I think it will add a
bogus pbufv element.

>              pbufv->count++;
>              pbufv->buf[pbufvindex].pos = ~0; /* Dummy */
>              pbufv->buf[pbufvindex].flags = 0;
>              pbufv->buf[pbufvindex].mem = out_sg[iovindex].iov_base;
>              pbufv->buf[pbufvindex].size = out_sg[iovindex].iov_len;
> +
> +            if (skip) {
> +                pbufv->buf[pbufvindex].mem += skip;
> +                pbufv->buf[pbufvindex].size -= skip;
> +                skip = 0;
> +            }
>          }
>      } else {
>          /* Normal (non fast write) path */
>  
> -        /* Copy the rest of the buffer */
> -        fbuf.mem += out_sg->iov_len;
> -        copy_from_iov(&fbuf, out_num - 1, out_sg + 1);
> -        fbuf.mem -= out_sg->iov_len;
> +        copy_from_iov(&fbuf, out_num, out_sg, se->bufsize);
>          fbuf.size = out_len;
>  
>          /* TODO! Endianness of header */
> -- 
> 2.29.2
> 

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [Virtio-fs] [PATCH] virtiofsd: Don't assume header layout
  2021-03-05 16:06 ` Vivek Goyal
@ 2021-03-11 14:22   ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Dr. David Alan Gilbert @ 2021-03-11 14:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Vivek Goyal; +Cc: virtio-fs

* Vivek Goyal (vgoyal@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 05:45:36PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git) wrote:
> > From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>
> > 
> > virtiofsd incorrectly assumed a fixed set of header layout in the virt
> > queue; assuming that the fuse and write headers were conveniently
> > separated from the data;  the spec doesn't allow us to take that
> > convenience, so fix it up to deal with it the hard way.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c | 84 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> >  1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c b/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c
> > index 523ee64fb7..55e2e057ec 100644
> > --- a/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c
> > +++ b/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c
> > @@ -129,18 +129,55 @@ static void fv_panic(VuDev *dev, const char *err)
> >   * Copy from an iovec into a fuse_buf (memory only)
> >   * Caller must ensure there is space
> >   */
> > -static void copy_from_iov(struct fuse_buf *buf, size_t out_num,
> > -                          const struct iovec *out_sg)
> > +static size_t copy_from_iov(struct fuse_buf *buf, size_t out_num,
> > +                            const struct iovec *out_sg,
> > +                            size_t max)
> >  {
> >      void *dest = buf->mem;
> > +    size_t copied = 0;
> >  
> > -    while (out_num) {
> > +    while (out_num && max) {
> >          size_t onelen = out_sg->iov_len;
> > +        onelen = MIN(onelen, max);
> >          memcpy(dest, out_sg->iov_base, onelen);
> >          dest += onelen;
> > +        copied += onelen;
> >          out_sg++;
> >          out_num--;
> > +        max -= onelen;
> >      }
> > +
> > +    return copied;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Skip 'skip' bytes in the iov; 'sg_1stindex' is set as
> > + * the index for the 1st iovec to read data from, and
> > + * 'sg_1stskip' is the number of bytes to skip in that entry.
> > + *
> > + * Returns True if there are at least 'skip' bytes in the iovec
> > + *
> > + */
> > +static bool skip_iov(const struct iovec *sg, size_t sg_size,
> > +                     size_t skip,
> > +                     size_t *sg_1stindex, size_t *sg_1stskip)
> > +{
> > +    size_t vec;
> > +
> > +    for (vec = 0; vec < sg_size; vec++) {
> > +        if (sg[vec].iov_len > skip) {
> > +            *sg_1stskip = skip;
> > +            *sg_1stindex = vec;
> > +
> > +            return true;
> > +        }
> > +
> > +        skip -= sg[vec].iov_len;
> > +    }
> > +
> > +    *sg_1stindex = vec;
> > +    *sg_1stskip = 0;
> > +    return skip == 0;
> >  }
> >  
> >  /*
> > @@ -505,14 +542,14 @@ static void fv_queue_worker(gpointer data, gpointer user_data)
> >                   elem->index);
> >          assert(0); /* TODO */
> >      }
> > -    /* Copy just the first element and look at it */
> > -    copy_from_iov(&fbuf, 1, out_sg);
> > +    /* Copy just the fuse_in_header and look at it */
> > +    copy_from_iov(&fbuf, out_num, out_sg,
> > +                  sizeof(struct fuse_in_header));
> >  
> >      pbufv = NULL; /* Compiler thinks an unitialised path */
> > -    if (out_num > 2 &&
> > -        out_sg[0].iov_len == sizeof(struct fuse_in_header) &&
> > -        ((struct fuse_in_header *)fbuf.mem)->opcode == FUSE_WRITE &&
> > -        out_sg[1].iov_len == sizeof(struct fuse_write_in)) {
> > +    if (((struct fuse_in_header *)fbuf.mem)->opcode == FUSE_WRITE &&
> > +        out_len >= (sizeof(struct fuse_in_header) +
> > +                    sizeof(struct fuse_write_in))) {
> >          /*
> >           * For a write we don't actually need to copy the
> >           * data, we can just do it straight out of guest memory
> > @@ -521,15 +558,13 @@ static void fv_queue_worker(gpointer data, gpointer user_data)
> >           */
> >          fuse_log(FUSE_LOG_DEBUG, "%s: Write special case\n", __func__);
> >  
> > -        /* copy the fuse_write_in header afte rthe fuse_in_header */
> 
> Hi Dave,
> 
> I was scratching my head that why FUSE_WRITE path is being handled
> differently than rest of the requests. Then I happened to look
> at description of fuse_session_process_buf_int() and that expects
> a certain layout for FUSE_WRITE requests. Thats why...

Ah, hop=efully this solves it.

> > -        fbuf.mem += out_sg->iov_len;
> > -        copy_from_iov(&fbuf, 1, out_sg + 1);
> > -        fbuf.mem -= out_sg->iov_len;
> > -        fbuf.size = out_sg[0].iov_len + out_sg[1].iov_len;
> > +        fbuf.size = copy_from_iov(&fbuf, out_num, out_sg,
> > +                                  sizeof(struct fuse_in_header) +
> > +                                  sizeof(struct fuse_write_in));
> 
> You are not trusting guest that it can change iovecs. So is it a good
> idea to copy fuse_in_header again. I mean we copied once, looked at
> it and now are copying again. It is possible that guest changed it
> and our assumption of this being a WRITE request might be broken now.

OK, the easiest way is to copy it out and back; it's easier than
modifying copy_from_iov to skip.

> 
> >  
> >          /* Allocate the bufv, with space for the rest of the iov */
> >          pbufv = malloc(sizeof(struct fuse_bufvec) +
> > -                       sizeof(struct fuse_buf) * (out_num - 2));
> > +                       sizeof(struct fuse_buf) * out_num);
> >          if (!pbufv) {
> >              fuse_log(FUSE_LOG_ERR, "%s: pbufv malloc failed\n",
> >                      __func__);
> > @@ -540,24 +575,31 @@ static void fv_queue_worker(gpointer data, gpointer user_data)
> >          pbufv->count = 1;
> >          pbufv->buf[0] = fbuf;
> >  
> > -        size_t iovindex, pbufvindex;
> > -        iovindex = 2; /* 2 headers, separate iovs */
> > +        size_t iovindex, pbufvindex, skip;
> 
> How about renaming "skip" to say "iov_byte_skip" or something like that.
> Too many variables are in there. It just makes it clear to skip few
> bytes in iov. Just a suggestion. Feel free to ignore if you are not
> convinced.

Done.

> >          pbufvindex = 1; /* 2 headers, 1 fusebuf */
> >  
> > +        skip_iov(out_sg, out_num,
> > +                 sizeof(struct fuse_in_header) +
> > +                 sizeof(struct fuse_write_in),
> > +                 &iovindex, &skip);
> > +
> 
> How about looking at return code of skip_iov(). Just in case guest
> has changed it by now.
> 
> May be a safer practice will be to always first copy out_sg in a
> temporary buffer and then we should parse it and organize in
> pbufv/bufv for fuse consumption. But I guess that adds one extra
> copy and it might not be worth it. So may be solve it when it
> creates a real problem.

I've added a check on skip_iov's return.

Dave


> Thanks
> Vivek
> 
> >          for (; iovindex < out_num; iovindex++, pbufvindex++) {
> >              pbufv->count++;
> >              pbufv->buf[pbufvindex].pos = ~0; /* Dummy */
> >              pbufv->buf[pbufvindex].flags = 0;
> >              pbufv->buf[pbufvindex].mem = out_sg[iovindex].iov_base;
> >              pbufv->buf[pbufvindex].size = out_sg[iovindex].iov_len;
> > +
> > +            if (skip) {
> > +                pbufv->buf[pbufvindex].mem += skip;
> > +                pbufv->buf[pbufvindex].size -= skip;
> > +                skip = 0;
> > +            }
> >          }
> >      } else {
> >          /* Normal (non fast write) path */
> >  
> > -        /* Copy the rest of the buffer */
> > -        fbuf.mem += out_sg->iov_len;
> > -        copy_from_iov(&fbuf, out_num - 1, out_sg + 1);
> > -        fbuf.mem -= out_sg->iov_len;
> > +        copy_from_iov(&fbuf, out_num, out_sg, se->bufsize);
> >          fbuf.size = out_len;
> >  
> >          /* TODO! Endianness of header */
> > -- 
> > 2.29.2
> > 
-- 
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [Virtio-fs] [PATCH] virtiofsd: Don't assume header layout
  2021-03-08 16:14 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
@ 2021-03-11 14:58   ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
  2021-03-11 15:55     ` Stefan Hajnoczi
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Dr. David Alan Gilbert @ 2021-03-11 14:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Stefan Hajnoczi; +Cc: virtio-fs, vgoyal

* Stefan Hajnoczi (stefanha@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 05:45:36PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git) wrote:
> > From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>
> > 
> > virtiofsd incorrectly assumed a fixed set of header layout in the virt
> > queue; assuming that the fuse and write headers were conveniently
> > separated from the data;  the spec doesn't allow us to take that
> > convenience, so fix it up to deal with it the hard way.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c | 84 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> >  1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c b/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c
> > index 523ee64fb7..55e2e057ec 100644
> > --- a/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c
> > +++ b/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c
> > @@ -129,18 +129,55 @@ static void fv_panic(VuDev *dev, const char *err)
> >   * Copy from an iovec into a fuse_buf (memory only)
> >   * Caller must ensure there is space
> >   */
> > -static void copy_from_iov(struct fuse_buf *buf, size_t out_num,
> > -                          const struct iovec *out_sg)
> > +static size_t copy_from_iov(struct fuse_buf *buf, size_t out_num,
> > +                            const struct iovec *out_sg,
> > +                            size_t max)
> >  {
> >      void *dest = buf->mem;
> > +    size_t copied = 0;
> >  
> > -    while (out_num) {
> > +    while (out_num && max) {
> >          size_t onelen = out_sg->iov_len;
> > +        onelen = MIN(onelen, max);
> >          memcpy(dest, out_sg->iov_base, onelen);
> >          dest += onelen;
> > +        copied += onelen;
> >          out_sg++;
> >          out_num--;
> > +        max -= onelen;
> >      }
> > +
> > +    return copied;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Skip 'skip' bytes in the iov; 'sg_1stindex' is set as
> > + * the index for the 1st iovec to read data from, and
> > + * 'sg_1stskip' is the number of bytes to skip in that entry.
> > + *
> > + * Returns True if there are at least 'skip' bytes in the iovec
> > + *
> > + */
> > +static bool skip_iov(const struct iovec *sg, size_t sg_size,
> > +                     size_t skip,
> > +                     size_t *sg_1stindex, size_t *sg_1stskip)
> > +{
> > +    size_t vec;
> > +
> > +    for (vec = 0; vec < sg_size; vec++) {
> > +        if (sg[vec].iov_len > skip) {
> > +            *sg_1stskip = skip;
> > +            *sg_1stindex = vec;
> > +
> > +            return true;
> > +        }
> > +
 (1)         skip -= sg[vec].iov_len;
> > +    }
> > +
 (2)     *sg_1stindex = vec;
> > +    *sg_1stskip = 0;
 (3)     return skip == 0;
> >  }
> 
> This comment does not match the code: "Returns True if there are at
> least 'skip' bytes in the iovec". When skip == iov_length(sg, sg_size)
> the function returns false.

I'm not seeing how; in that case, it'll loop around executing (1) for
each vector, so skip will reduce, then it falls out of the for loop
and if it was equal to the size of the vector, (1) would have subtracted
the whole vector out, so skip would now be 0, hence the 'skip == 0' at 2 and
so it should return true.

> >  
> >  /*
> > @@ -505,14 +542,14 @@ static void fv_queue_worker(gpointer data, gpointer user_data)
> >                   elem->index);
> >          assert(0); /* TODO */
> >      }
> > -    /* Copy just the first element and look at it */
> > -    copy_from_iov(&fbuf, 1, out_sg);
> > +    /* Copy just the fuse_in_header and look at it */
> > +    copy_from_iov(&fbuf, out_num, out_sg,
> > +                  sizeof(struct fuse_in_header));
> >  
> >      pbufv = NULL; /* Compiler thinks an unitialised path */
> > -    if (out_num > 2 &&
> > -        out_sg[0].iov_len == sizeof(struct fuse_in_header) &&
> > -        ((struct fuse_in_header *)fbuf.mem)->opcode == FUSE_WRITE &&
> > -        out_sg[1].iov_len == sizeof(struct fuse_write_in)) {
> > +    if (((struct fuse_in_header *)fbuf.mem)->opcode == FUSE_WRITE &&
> > +        out_len >= (sizeof(struct fuse_in_header) +
> > +                    sizeof(struct fuse_write_in))) {
> >          /*
> >           * For a write we don't actually need to copy the
> >           * data, we can just do it straight out of guest memory
> > @@ -521,15 +558,13 @@ static void fv_queue_worker(gpointer data, gpointer user_data)
> >           */
> >          fuse_log(FUSE_LOG_DEBUG, "%s: Write special case\n", __func__);
> >  
> > -        /* copy the fuse_write_in header afte rthe fuse_in_header */
> > -        fbuf.mem += out_sg->iov_len;
> > -        copy_from_iov(&fbuf, 1, out_sg + 1);
> > -        fbuf.mem -= out_sg->iov_len;
> > -        fbuf.size = out_sg[0].iov_len + out_sg[1].iov_len;
> > +        fbuf.size = copy_from_iov(&fbuf, out_num, out_sg,
> > +                                  sizeof(struct fuse_in_header) +
> > +                                  sizeof(struct fuse_write_in));
> >  
> >          /* Allocate the bufv, with space for the rest of the iov */
> >          pbufv = malloc(sizeof(struct fuse_bufvec) +
> > -                       sizeof(struct fuse_buf) * (out_num - 2));
> > +                       sizeof(struct fuse_buf) * out_num);
> >          if (!pbufv) {
> >              fuse_log(FUSE_LOG_ERR, "%s: pbufv malloc failed\n",
> >                      __func__);
> > @@ -540,24 +575,31 @@ static void fv_queue_worker(gpointer data, gpointer user_data)
> >          pbufv->count = 1;
> >          pbufv->buf[0] = fbuf;
> >  
> > -        size_t iovindex, pbufvindex;
> > -        iovindex = 2; /* 2 headers, separate iovs */
> > +        size_t iovindex, pbufvindex, skip;
> >          pbufvindex = 1; /* 2 headers, 1 fusebuf */
> >  
> > +        skip_iov(out_sg, out_num,
> > +                 sizeof(struct fuse_in_header) +
> > +                 sizeof(struct fuse_write_in),
> > +                 &iovindex, &skip);
> > +
> >          for (; iovindex < out_num; iovindex++, pbufvindex++) {
> 
> What happens when iov_length(out_sg, out_num) == sizeof(struct
> fuse_in_header) + sizeof(struct fuse_write_in)? I think it will add a
> bogus pbufv element.

skip_iov should have set iovindex=out_num in that case and so that loop
won't happen.

Dave

> >              pbufv->count++;
> >              pbufv->buf[pbufvindex].pos = ~0; /* Dummy */
> >              pbufv->buf[pbufvindex].flags = 0;
> >              pbufv->buf[pbufvindex].mem = out_sg[iovindex].iov_base;
> >              pbufv->buf[pbufvindex].size = out_sg[iovindex].iov_len;
> > +
> > +            if (skip) {
> > +                pbufv->buf[pbufvindex].mem += skip;
> > +                pbufv->buf[pbufvindex].size -= skip;
> > +                skip = 0;
> > +            }
> >          }
> >      } else {
> >          /* Normal (non fast write) path */
> >  
> > -        /* Copy the rest of the buffer */
> > -        fbuf.mem += out_sg->iov_len;
> > -        copy_from_iov(&fbuf, out_num - 1, out_sg + 1);
> > -        fbuf.mem -= out_sg->iov_len;
> > +        copy_from_iov(&fbuf, out_num, out_sg, se->bufsize);
> >          fbuf.size = out_len;
> >  
> >          /* TODO! Endianness of header */
> > -- 
> > 2.29.2
> > 


-- 
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [Virtio-fs] [PATCH] virtiofsd: Don't assume header layout
  2021-03-11 14:58   ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
@ 2021-03-11 15:55     ` Stefan Hajnoczi
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Hajnoczi @ 2021-03-11 15:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Dr. David Alan Gilbert; +Cc: virtio-fs, vgoyal

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3553 bytes --]

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 02:58:09PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Stefan Hajnoczi (stefanha@redhat.com) wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 05:45:36PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git) wrote:
> > > From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>
> > > 
> > > virtiofsd incorrectly assumed a fixed set of header layout in the virt
> > > queue; assuming that the fuse and write headers were conveniently
> > > separated from the data;  the spec doesn't allow us to take that
> > > convenience, so fix it up to deal with it the hard way.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > >  tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c | 84 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> > >  1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c b/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c
> > > index 523ee64fb7..55e2e057ec 100644
> > > --- a/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c
> > > +++ b/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c
> > > @@ -129,18 +129,55 @@ static void fv_panic(VuDev *dev, const char *err)
> > >   * Copy from an iovec into a fuse_buf (memory only)
> > >   * Caller must ensure there is space
> > >   */
> > > -static void copy_from_iov(struct fuse_buf *buf, size_t out_num,
> > > -                          const struct iovec *out_sg)
> > > +static size_t copy_from_iov(struct fuse_buf *buf, size_t out_num,
> > > +                            const struct iovec *out_sg,
> > > +                            size_t max)
> > >  {
> > >      void *dest = buf->mem;
> > > +    size_t copied = 0;
> > >  
> > > -    while (out_num) {
> > > +    while (out_num && max) {
> > >          size_t onelen = out_sg->iov_len;
> > > +        onelen = MIN(onelen, max);
> > >          memcpy(dest, out_sg->iov_base, onelen);
> > >          dest += onelen;
> > > +        copied += onelen;
> > >          out_sg++;
> > >          out_num--;
> > > +        max -= onelen;
> > >      }
> > > +
> > > +    return copied;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * Skip 'skip' bytes in the iov; 'sg_1stindex' is set as
> > > + * the index for the 1st iovec to read data from, and
> > > + * 'sg_1stskip' is the number of bytes to skip in that entry.
> > > + *
> > > + * Returns True if there are at least 'skip' bytes in the iovec
> > > + *
> > > + */
> > > +static bool skip_iov(const struct iovec *sg, size_t sg_size,
> > > +                     size_t skip,
> > > +                     size_t *sg_1stindex, size_t *sg_1stskip)
> > > +{
> > > +    size_t vec;
> > > +
> > > +    for (vec = 0; vec < sg_size; vec++) {
> > > +        if (sg[vec].iov_len > skip) {
> > > +            *sg_1stskip = skip;
> > > +            *sg_1stindex = vec;
> > > +
> > > +            return true;
> > > +        }
> > > +
>  (1)         skip -= sg[vec].iov_len;
> > > +    }
> > > +
>  (2)     *sg_1stindex = vec;
> > > +    *sg_1stskip = 0;
>  (3)     return skip == 0;
> > >  }
> > 
> > This comment does not match the code: "Returns True if there are at
> > least 'skip' bytes in the iovec". When skip == iov_length(sg, sg_size)
> > the function returns false.
> 
> I'm not seeing how; in that case, it'll loop around executing (1) for
> each vector, so skip will reduce, then it falls out of the for loop
> and if it was equal to the size of the vector, (1) would have subtracted
> the whole vector out, so skip would now be 0, hence the 'skip == 0' at 2 and
> so it should return true.

You're right. I misread the code!

Stefan

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2021-03-11 15:55 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-03-04 17:45 [Virtio-fs] [PATCH] virtiofsd: Don't assume header layout Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git)
2021-03-05 16:06 ` Vivek Goyal
2021-03-11 14:22   ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2021-03-08 16:14 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2021-03-11 14:58   ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2021-03-11 15:55     ` Stefan Hajnoczi

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.