linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] Intel pci: Limit dmar_init_reserved

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4D951109.1040707@sgi.com>
Date:	Thu, 31 Mar 2011 18:40:57 -0500
From:	Mike Habeck <habeck@....com>
To:	Mike Travis <travis@....com>
Cc:	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] Intel pci: Limit dmar_init_reserved_ranges

On 03/31/2011 06:25 PM, Mike Travis wrote:
> I'll probably need help from our Hardware PCI Engineer to help explain
> this further, though here's a pointer to an earlier email thread:
>
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=129259816925973&w=2
>
> I'll also dig out the specs you're asking for.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> Chris Wright wrote:
>> * Mike Travis (travis@....com) wrote:
>>> Chris - did you have any comment on this patch?
>>
>> It doesn't actually look right to me. It means that particular range
>> is no longer reserved. But perhaps I've misunderstood something.
>>
>>> Mike Travis wrote:
>>>> dmar_init_reserved_ranges() reserves the card's MMIO ranges to
>>>> prevent handing out a DMA map that would overlap with the MMIO range.
>>>> The problem while the Nvidia GPU has 64bit BARs, it's capable of
>>>> receiving > 40bit PIOs, but can't generate > 40bit DMAs.
>>
>> I don't undertand what you mean here.

What Mike is getting at is there is no reason to reserve the MMIO
range if it's greater than the dma_mask, given the MMIO range is
outside of what the IOVA code will ever hand back to the IOMMU
code.  In this case the nVidia card has a 64bit BAR and is assigned
the MMIO range [0xf8200000000 - 0xf820fffffff].  But the Nvidia
card can only generate a 40bit DMA (thus has a 40bit dma_mask). If
the IOVA code honors the limit_pfn (i.e., dma_mask) passed in it
will never hand back a >40bit address back to the IOMMU code. Thus
there is no reason to reserve the cards MMIO range if it is greater
than the dma_mask. (And that is what the patch is doing).

More below,,,

>>
>>>> So when the iommu code reserves these MMIO ranges a > 40bit
>>>> entry ends up getting in the rbtree. On a UV test system with
>>>> the Nvidia cards, the BARs are:
>>>>
>>>> 0001:36:00.0 VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation
>>>> GT200GL Region 0: Memory at 92000000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable)
>>>> [size=16M]
>>>> Region 1: Memory at f8200000000 (64-bit, prefetchable) [size=256M]
>>>> Region 3: Memory at 90000000 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=32M]
>>>>
>>>> So this 44bit MMIO address 0xf8200000000 ends up in the rbtree. As DMA
>>>> maps get added and deleted from the rbtree we can end up getting a cached
>>>> entry to this 0xf8200000000 entry... this is what results in the code
>>>> handing out the invalid DMA map of 0xf81fffff000:
>>>>
>>>> [ 0xf8200000000-1 >> PAGE_SIZE << PAGE_SIZE ]
>>>>
>>>> The IOVA code needs to better honor the "limit_pfn" when allocating
>>>> these maps.
>>
>> This means we could get the MMIO address range (it's no longer reserved).

Not true, the MMIO address is greater than the dma_mask (i.e., the
limit_pfn passed into alloc_iova()) thus the IOVA code will never
hand back that address range given it's greater than the dma_mask).

>> It seems to me the DMA transaction would then become a peer to peer
>> transaction if ACS is not enabled, which could show up as random register
>> write in that GPUs 256M BAR (i.e. broken).
>>
>> The iova allocation should not hand out an address bigger than the
>> dma_mask. What is the device's dma_mask?

Agree.  But there is a bug.  The IOVA doesn't validate the limit_pfn
if it uses the cached entry.  One could argue that it should validate
the limit_pfn, but then again a entry outside the limit_pfn should
have never got into the rbtree...  (it got in due to the IOMMU's
dmar_init_reserved_ranges() adding it).

-mike

>>
>> thanks,
>> -chris

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/