Re: [REGRESSION] virtio: reject shm region if length is zero
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Date: 2025-08-16 10:36:25
Also in:
lkml, regressions
On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 09:19:34PM +0200, Alyssa Ross wrote:
Alyssa Ross [off-list ref] writes:quoted
On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 07:51:53AM +0930, SamiUddinsami.md.ko@gmail.com wrote:quoted
From: Sami Uddin <redacted> Prevent usage of shared memory regions where the length is zero, as such configurations are not valid and may lead to unexpected behavior. Signed-off-by: Sami Uddin <redacted> --- v3: - Use idiomatic 'if (!region->len)' as suggested by reviewer v2: - Fixed coding style issue: added space after 'if' statement include/linux/virtio_config.h | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)Hi, I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but since this patch my VM no longer works. The system is running wayland-proxy-virtwl[1] inside a crosvm[2] VM, using crosvm's virtio-gpu device to do cross-domain Wayland forwarding. Since this change, wayland-proxy-virtwl crashes with the following log message: wl-proxy [WARNING]: Error handling client: Unix.Unix_error(Unix.EINVAL, "DRM_IOCTL_VIRTGPU_RESOURCE_CREATE_BLOB", "") I'm pretty confused by what this change was supposed to do in the first place… Looking at how virtio_get_shm_region() is used in virtio_gpu_init(), it's called with a pointer to zeroed memory, and then the get_shm_region() implementation is supposed to write to the region, without ever reading from it as far as I can tell. Why is the initial value of an out parameter being checked at all? How does this prevent using zero-length shared memory regions? [1]: https://crosvm.dev/ [2]: https://github.com/talex5/wayland-proxy-virtwl #regzbot introduced: 206cc44588f72b49ad4d7e21a7472ab2a72a83dfOkay, just found that it's already been reverted: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250808072533-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org/ (local) Still, I'm confused how this was supposed to fix anything… #regzbot fix: Revert "virtio: reject shm region if length is zero"
Are you asking why was the patch applied in the 1st place? It seemed like an invalid behaviour to me, and I thought it's not too late to block it so we don't need to support it down the road. -- MST