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: <4D9524DF.10405@sgi.com>
Date:	Thu, 31 Mar 2011 20:05:35 -0500
From:	Mike Habeck <habeck@....com>
To:	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
Cc:	Mike Travis <travis@....com>,
	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



Chris Wright wrote:
> * Mike Habeck (habeck@....com) wrote:
>> 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).
> 
> The reserved ranges are for all devices.  Another device with a 64bit
> dma_mask could get that region if it's not properly reserved.  The
> driver would then program that device to dma to an address to is an
> alias to a MMIO region.  The memory transaction travels up towards
> root...and sees the MMIO range in some bridge and would go straight down
> to the GPU.

Chris,

OK, I understand now what you meant by the patch possibly causing
the DMA transaction to become a peer to peer transaction.  Mike and
I will have to rethink this one.  Thanks for your input.

-mike


> 
>> 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).
> 
> Well, as you guys are seeing, the iova allocation code is making the
> assumption that if the range is in the tree, it's valid.  And it is
> handing out an address that's too large.
> 
>>>> 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).
> 
> Yeah, I think it needs to be in the global reserved list.  But perhaps
> not copied into the domain specific iova.  Or simply skipped on iova
> allocation (don't just assume rb_last is <= dma_mask).
> 
> 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/