| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1431617418.3625.121.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 09:30:18 -0600
From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To: Eric Auger <eric.auger@...aro.org>
Cc: eric.auger@...com, christoffer.dall@...aro.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, b.reynal@...tualopensystems.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...aro.org, agraf@...e.de,
Bharat.Bhushan@...escale.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] VFIO: platform: populate reset function according
to compat
On Thu, 2015-05-14 at 10:57 +0200, Eric Auger wrote:
> On 05/13/2015 08:33 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 16:27 +0200, Eric Auger wrote:
> >> Add the reset function lookup according to the device compat
> >> string. This lookup is added at different places:
> >> - on VFIO_DEVICE_GET_INFO
> >> - on VFIO_DEVICE_RESET
> >> - on device release
> >>
> >> A reference to the module implementing the reset function is taken
> >> on first reset function lookup and released on vfio platform device
> >> release.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@...aro.org>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_common.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_common.c b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_common.c
> >> index 0d10018..bd7e44c 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_common.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_common.c
> >> @@ -28,6 +28,52 @@ LIST_HEAD(reset_list);
> >>
> >> static DEFINE_MUTEX(driver_lock);
> >>
> >> +static vfio_platform_reset_fn_t vfio_platform_lookup_reset(const char *compat)
> >> +{
> >> + struct vfio_platform_reset_node *iter;
> >> +
> >> + list_for_each_entry(iter, &reset_list, link) {
> >
> > Racy
> ok
> >
> >> + if (!strcmp(iter->compat, compat) &&
> >> + try_module_get(iter->owner))
> >> + return iter->reset;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> >
> > return NULL imo
> ok
> >
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static vfio_platform_reset_fn_t vfio_platform_get_reset(
> >> + struct vfio_platform_device *vdev)
> >> +{
> >> + struct device *dev = vdev->get_device(vdev);
> >> + const char *compat_str_array[2];
> >> + vfio_platform_reset_fn_t reset;
> >> + int ret;
> >> +
> >> + if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(vdev->reset))
> >> + return vdev->reset;
> >> +
> >> + ret = device_property_read_string_array(dev, "compatible",
> >> + compat_str_array, 2);
> >> + if (!ret)
> >> + return ERR_PTR(ret);
> >> +
> >> + reset = vfio_platform_lookup_reset(compat_str_array[0]);
> >> + return reset;
> >
> > Something got allocated into compat_str_array and gets leaked here.
> is there any allocation? device_property_read_string_array does not
> return -ENOMEM.
Yeah, since they're const I guess maybe it's just setting a pointer. It
troubles me a little bit that nobody else seems to be using this
device_property_read_string_array() interface.
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static void vfio_platform_put_reset(struct vfio_platform_device *vdev)
> >> +{
> >> + struct vfio_platform_reset_node *iter;
> >> +
> >> + list_for_each_entry(iter, &reset_list, link) {
> >
> > Racy
> ok
> >
> >> + if (iter->reset == vdev->reset) {
> >> + module_put(iter->owner);
> >> + vdev->reset = NULL;
> >> + return;
> >> + }
> >> + }
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> static int vfio_platform_regions_init(struct vfio_platform_device *vdev)
> >> {
> >> int cnt = 0, i;
> >> @@ -103,10 +149,12 @@ static void vfio_platform_release(void *device_data)
> >> mutex_lock(&driver_lock);
> >>
> >> if (!(--vdev->refcnt)) {
> >> + vdev->reset = vfio_platform_get_reset(vdev);
> >> if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(vdev->reset))
> >> vdev->reset(vdev);
> >> vfio_platform_regions_cleanup(vdev);
> >> vfio_platform_irq_cleanup(vdev);
> >> + vfio_platform_put_reset(vdev);
> >> }
> >>
> >> mutex_unlock(&driver_lock);
> >> @@ -164,6 +212,7 @@ static long vfio_platform_ioctl(void *device_data,
> >> if (info.argsz < minsz)
> >> return -EINVAL;
> >>
> >> + vdev->reset = vfio_platform_get_reset(vdev);
> >> if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(vdev->reset))
> >> vdev->flags |= VFIO_DEVICE_FLAGS_RESET;
> >> info.flags = vdev->flags;
> >> @@ -260,6 +309,7 @@ static long vfio_platform_ioctl(void *device_data,
> >> return ret;
> >>
> >> } else if (cmd == VFIO_DEVICE_RESET) {
> >> + vdev->reset = vfio_platform_get_reset(vdev);
> >> if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(vdev->reset))
> >> return vdev->reset(vdev);
> >> else
> >
> > I count 3 gets and 1 put, isn't the module reference count increase
> > showing that?
>
> vfio_platform_get_reset simply returns if the function pointer already
> is populated so there is no systematic ref increment.
Ah, so it does.
>
> This looks like it hasn't been tested.
>
> It did testing with external and in-kernel modules through
> Why would we do a
> > get every time we want to do a reset?
>
> My doubt were about the order of probing between the
> vfio-platform_driver and the vfio reset module? This question was the
> rationale of this implementation choice. But again the actual ref count
> increment is devised to be done once on the first entry point (iotcl or
> internal release)
I think we need to enforce the ordering; the reset function should be
set on device open via request_module() and try_module_get() to make
sure it is present and can't go away (or make it all a static part of
vfio-platform). A user doesn't expect the reset capability advertised
in the vfio device info struct to change over time. Thanks,
Alex
--
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