On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:08:44 +0100
Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> wrote:
[...]
> > (The logic in vhost_verify_ring_mappings doesn't make sense
> > to me either though; if vhost_verify_ring_part_mapping returns 0
> > on success, why is it doing if (!r) { break; } surely it
> > should be if (r) { break; })
> it looks like a bug (CCing Greg)
>
Wow! It's obviously a bug indeed and I'm amazed it didn't get caught
during the review :-\
I'll send a patch ASAP.
> before (f1f9e6c5 vhost: adapt vhost_verify_ring_mappings() to virtio 1 ring
> layout)
> logic used to be
>
> if changed_*_addr doesn't contain ring
> "IGNORE as we don't care"
>
> if changed_*_addr contain ring AND ring can't be mapped at the same place
> ABORT
>
> with f1f9e6c5 we have 3 rings so on any of them following could happen
> if "IGNORE as we don't care"
> break => false success
> since it's possible that the remaining rings in vq do overlap and didn't
> get checked
>
