[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 3/6] VT-d: don't leak domid mapping on error path
- To: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 14:45:14 +0100
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=suse.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=ATCPuTxKIiHV0KnzFB9N83LvujMW/X0Oiqf3zEn/IZI=; b=juaxStk0gaR2YaZgv8AgZB0tNvfJGu6luWBuJgLLxw/kKDnEQupyHJMHHsAJ8nEGWZsuO7eJc78P62mI/I4jfXwxY0jB9MrWNNjdO5pgAHSMbvgO5320Zbj5TH84RXj9xWooImqWH8lVwtOqqPLX5vBCwjWtWDUB4AOQu59Pl2y/sZJ3MZDi76cpg4sesckZg2Sfku6NekxBeilQWK90XEA18MNHGiZ9/RQjaIXUVZQr/g0fSFvW6TDvD2SmgF942zEi0Hr1sxozE/UJE29sTtrGS3c4TuOU+KVSjEweeS1kQpYAbDFEs5qk7UX19NI179jzlc6HpP157lkgk3dpPg==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=YfXSxgn1QX67I1lKtzgFl4+/b2yvDu/Id7BGrs9VzUJvb16BRXm2PrlU4WmrtytIiDbfkSKW/ZDWKl05Lk/pa7srAeswoiSO9f8OdJIWuf3amB0PP3dZ2T4K8RTMM01gMCcA3F8TlyNT8kvOIH2R+Tg+XU0FJOvnsPMW3bu80QqWk203r9ysWB8kQMHvlUPsh/rv745yXM+YihcKfP59MvJao94l/HRPhOI403wKx4wxZtNk0PjTvTvz14Obp/H+BsLNMh99CqAGmvRCNFuxPGPi5ty/ZLB2MUjFPNmQuIRUzZdV9RKb5QpNPg7Af76r/QTQvJQg+mombfC4R9kYtg==
- Authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=suse.com;
- Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 13:45:30 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 12.11.2021 14:42, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 10:48:43AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> While domain_context_mapping() invokes domain_context_unmap() in a sub-
>> case of handling DEV_TYPE_PCI when encountering an error, thus avoiding
>> a leak, individual calls to domain_context_mapping_one() aren't
>> similarly covered. Such a leak might persist until domain destruction.
>> Leverage that these cases can be recognized by pdev being non-NULL.
>
> Would it help to place the domid cleanup in domain_context_unmap_one,
> as that would then cover calls from domain_context_unmap and the
> failure path in domain_context_mapping_one.
I don't think that would work (without further convolution), because of
the up to 3 successive calls in DEV_TYPE_PCI handling. Cleanup may happen
only on the first map's error path or after the last unmap.
Jan
|
