On 21/08/2019 10:13, Paul Durrant wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Roger Pau Monne <roger....@citrix.com> >> Sent: 21 August 2019 09:52 >> To: Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com> >> Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>; Andrew >> Cooper >> <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; Wei Liu <w...@xen.org> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] viridian: make viridian_time_domain_freeze() safe to >> call... >> >> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 09:22:58AM +0100, Paul Durrant wrote: >>> ...on a partially destroyed domain. >>> >>> viridian_time_domain_freeze() and viridian_time_vcpu_freeze() rely >>> (respectively) on the dynamically allocated per-domain and per-vcpu viridian >>> areas [1], which are freed during domain_relinquish_resources(). >>> Because arch_domain_pause() can call viridian_domain_time_freeze() this >>> can lead to host crashes if e.g. a XEN_DOMCTL_pausedomain is issued after >>> domain_relinquish_resources() has run. >>> >>> To prevent such crashes, this patch adds a check of is_dying into >>> viridian_time_domain_freeze(), and viridian_time_domain_thaw() which is >>> similarly vulnerable to indirection into freed memory. >>> >>> NOTE: The patch also makes viridian_time_vcpu_freeze/thaw() static, since >>> they have no callers outside of the same source module. >>> >>> [1] See commit e7a9b5e72f26 "viridian: separately allocate domain and vcpu >>> structures". >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com> >> Reviewed-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger....@citrix.com> >> >> Note you could also drop the viridian_ prefix to the now static >> functions. >> > Yeah, they could be dropped. May be a friendly committer could do it? :-)
Done. ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
