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  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]
Date:	Thu, 19 Jun 2014 16:17:02 +1000
From:	Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>
To:	"Bharat.Bhushan@...escale.com" <Bharat.Bhushan@...escale.com>,
	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
CC:	"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Nikunj A Dadhania <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>,
	"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfio: Fix endianness handling for emulated BARs

On 06/19/2014 03:30 PM, Bharat.Bhushan@...escale.com wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Linuxppc-dev [mailto:linuxppc-dev-
>> bounces+bharat.bhushan=freescale.com@...ts.ozlabs.org] On Behalf Of Alexey
>> Kardashevskiy
>> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 9:18 AM
>> To: Alex Williamson
>> Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org; Nikunj A Dadhania; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
>> Alexander Graf; linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfio: Fix endianness handling for emulated BARs
>>
>> On 06/19/2014 11:50 AM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>> On 06/19/2014 10:50 AM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>>> On 06/19/2014 04:35 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 21:36 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>>>>> VFIO exposes BARs to user space as a byte stream so userspace can
>>>>>> read it using pread()/pwrite(). Since this is a byte stream, VFIO
>>>>>> should not do byte swapping and simply return values as it gets
>>>>>> them from PCI device.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Instead, the existing code assumes that byte stream in read/write
>>>>>> is little-endian and it fixes endianness for values which it passes
>>>>>> to ioreadXX/iowriteXX helpers. This works for little-endian as PCI
>>>>>> is little endian and le32_to_cpu/... are stubs.
>>>>>
>>>>> vfio read32:
>>>>>
>>>>> val = cpu_to_le32(ioread32(io + off));
>>>>>
>>>>> Where the typical x86 case, ioread32 is:
>>>>>
>>>>> #define ioread32(addr)          readl(addr)
>>>>>
>>>>> and readl is:
>>>>>
>>>>> __le32_to_cpu(__raw_readl(addr));
>>>>>
>>>>> So we do canceling byte swaps, which are both nops on x86, and end
>>>>> up returning device endian, which we assume is little endian.
>>>>>
>>>>> vfio write32 is similar:
>>>>>
>>>>> iowrite32(le32_to_cpu(val), io + off);
>>>>>
>>>>> The implicit cpu_to_le32 of iowrite32() and our explicit swap cancel
>>>>> out, so input data is device endian, which is assumed little.
>>>>>
>>>>>> This also works for big endian but rather by an accident: it reads
>>>>>> 4 bytes from the stream (@val is big endian), converts to CPU
>>>>>> format (which should be big endian) as it was little endian (@val
>>>>>> becomes actually little
>>>>>> endian) and calls iowrite32() which does not do swapping on big
>>>>>> endian system.
>>>>>
>>>>> Really?
>>>>>
>>>>> In arch/powerpc/kernel/iomap.c iowrite32() is just a wrapper around
>>>>> writel(), which seems to use the generic implementation, which does
>>>>> include a cpu_to_le32.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ouch, wrong comment. iowrite32() does swapping. My bad.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I also see other big endian archs like parisc doing cpu_to_le32 on
>>>>> iowrite32, so I don't think this statement is true.  I imagine it's
>>>>> probably working for you because the swap cancel.
>>>>>
>>>>>> This removes byte swapping and makes use ioread32be/iowrite32be
>>>>>> (and 16bit versions) on big-endian systems. The "be" helpers take
>>>>>> native endian values and do swapping at the moment of writing to a
>>>>>> PCI register using one of "store byte-reversed" instructions.
>>>>>
>>>>> So now you want iowrite32() on little endian and iowrite32be() on
>>>>> big endian, the former does a cpu_to_le32 (which is a nop on little
>>>>> endian) and the latter does a cpu_to_be32 (which is a nop on big endian)...
>>>>> should we just be using __raw_writel() on both?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We can do that too. The beauty of iowrite32be on ppc64 is that it
>>>> does not swap and write separately, it is implemented via the "Store
>>>> Word Byte-Reverse Indexed X-form" single instruction.
>>>>
>>>> And some archs (do not know which ones) may add memory barriers in
>>>> their implementations of ioread/iowrite. __raw_writel is too raw :)
>>>>
>>>>>  There doesn't actually
>>>>> seem to be any change in behavior here, it just eliminates
>>>>> back-to-back byte swaps, which are a nop on x86, but not power, right?
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. No dependency for QEMU.
>>>
>>> How about that:
>>> ===
>>>
>>> VFIO exposes BARs to user space as a byte stream so userspace can read
>>> it using pread()/pwrite(). Since this is a byte stream, VFIO should
>>> not do byte swapping and simply return values as it gets them from PCI
>>> device.
>>>
>>> Instead, the existing code assumes that byte stream in read/write is
>>> little-endian and it fixes endianness for values which it passes to
>>> ioreadXX/iowriteXX helpers in native format. The IO helpers do
>>> swapping again. Since both byte swaps are nops on little-endian host, this
>> works.
>>>
>>> This also works for big endian but rather by an accident: it reads 4
>>> bytes from the stream (@val is big endian), converts to CPU format
>>> (which should be big endian) as it was little endian (and @val becomes
>>> actually little
>>> endian) and calls iowrite32() which does swapping on big endian system
>>> again. So byte swap gets cancelled, __raw_writel() receives a native
>>> value and then *(volatile unsigned int __force *)PCI_FIX_ADDR(addr) =
>>> v; just does the right thing.
>>
>> I am wrong here, sorry. This is what happens when you watch soccer between 2am
>> and 4am :)
>>
>>
>>>
>>> This removes byte swaps and makes use of ioread32be/iowrite32be (and
>>> 16bit versions) which do explicit byte swapping at the moment of write
>>> to a PCI register. PPC64 uses a special "Store Word Byte-Reverse
>>> Indexed X-form" instruction which does swap and store.
>>
>> No swapping is done here if we use ioread32be as it calls in_be32 and that
>> animal does "lwz" which is simple load from memory.
>>
>> So @val (16/32 bit variable on stack) will have different values on LE and BE
>> but since we do not handle it the host and just memcpy it to the buffer, nothing
>> breaks here.
>>
>>
>> So it should be like this:
>> ===
>> VFIO exposes BARs to user space as a byte stream so userspace can read it using
>> pread()/pwrite(). Since this is a byte stream, VFIO should not do byte swapping
>> and simply return values as it gets them from PCI device and copy_to_user will
>> save bytes in the correct same true for writes.
> 
> " copy_to_user will save bytes in the correct" ---? --- "same true for writes".


Oops. "correct order" is it.




> 
> Thanks
> -Bharat
> 
>>
>> Instead, the existing code assumes that byte stream in read/write is little-
>> endian and it fixes endianness for values which it passes to ioreadXX/iowriteXX
>> helpers in native format. The IO helpers do swapping again. Since both byte
>> swaps are nops on little-endian host, this works.
> 
>>
>> This also works for big endian but rather by an accident: it reads 4 bytes from
>> the stream (@val is big endian), converts to CPU format (which should be big
>> endian) as it was little endian (and @val becomes actually little
>> endian) and calls iowrite32() which does swapping on big endian system again. So
>> byte swap in the host gets cancelled and __raw_writel() writes the value which
>> was swapped originally by the guest.
>>
>> This removes byte swaps and makes use of ioread32be/iowrite32be (and 16bit
>> versions) which do not do byte swap on BE hosts.
>> For LE hosts, ioread32/iowrite32 are still used.
>>
>> ===
>>
>>
>>> ===
>>>
>>> any better?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Suggested-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_rdwr.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++----
>>>>>>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_rdwr.c
>>>>>> b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_rdwr.c
>>>>>> index 210db24..f363b5a 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_rdwr.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_rdwr.c
>>>>>> @@ -21,6 +21,18 @@
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  #include "vfio_pci_private.h"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +#ifdef __BIG_ENDIAN__
>>>>>> +#define ioread16_native		ioread16be
>>>>>> +#define ioread32_native		ioread32be
>>>>>> +#define iowrite16_native	iowrite16be
>>>>>> +#define iowrite32_native	iowrite32be
>>>>>> +#else
>>>>>> +#define ioread16_native		ioread16
>>>>>> +#define ioread32_native		ioread32
>>>>>> +#define iowrite16_native	iowrite16
>>>>>> +#define iowrite32_native	iowrite32
>>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>> +
>>>>>>  /*
>>>>>>   * Read or write from an __iomem region (MMIO or I/O port) with an
>> excluded
>>>>>>   * range which is inaccessible.  The excluded range drops writes
>>>>>> and fills @@ -50,9 +62,9 @@ static ssize_t do_io_rw(void __iomem *io, char
>> __user *buf,
>>>>>>  				if (copy_from_user(&val, buf, 4))
>>>>>>  					return -EFAULT;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -				iowrite32(le32_to_cpu(val), io + off);
>>>>>> +				iowrite32_native(val, io + off);
>>>>>>  			} else {
>>>>>> -				val = cpu_to_le32(ioread32(io + off));
>>>>>> +				val = ioread32_native(io + off);
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  				if (copy_to_user(buf, &val, 4))
>>>>>>  					return -EFAULT;
>>>>>> @@ -66,9 +78,9 @@ static ssize_t do_io_rw(void __iomem *io, char __user
>> *buf,
>>>>>>  				if (copy_from_user(&val, buf, 2))
>>>>>>  					return -EFAULT;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -				iowrite16(le16_to_cpu(val), io + off);
>>>>>> +				iowrite16_native(val, io + off);
>>>>>>  			} else {
>>>>>> -				val = cpu_to_le16(ioread16(io + off));
>>>>>> +				val = ioread16_native(io + off);
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  				if (copy_to_user(buf, &val, 2))
>>>>>>  					return -EFAULT;
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alexey
>> _______________________________________________
>> Linuxppc-dev mailing list
>> Linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
>> https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev


-- 
Alexey
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists