From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C84A374F for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2016 03:39:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 13 Jul 2016 18:39:54 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,360,1464678000"; d="scan'208";a="1006399820" Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.67.162]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 13 Jul 2016 18:39:53 -0700 Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 09:42:45 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: Rich Lane Cc: Ilya Maximets , "dev@dpdk.org" , Huawei Xie , Dyasly Sergey , Heetae Ahn , Jianfeng Tan , Stephen Hemminger , Thomas Monjalon Message-ID: <20160714014245.GB5146@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <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=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] vhost: fix segfault on bad descriptor address. X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 01:39:56 -0000 On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 08:54:08AM -0700, Rich Lane wrote: > On Wednesday, July 13, 2016, Yuanhan Liu 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. Good point. Ilya, would you reword the commit log and resend based on latest code? --yliu