[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56E0C49B.8010300@codeaurora.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 18:49:31 -0600
From: Shanker Donthineni <shankerd@...eaurora.org>
To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Vikram Sethi <vikrams@...eaurora.org>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] irqchip/gicv3-its: Don't allow devices whose ID is
outside range
Hi Marc,
On 03/08/2016 08:31 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 13:22:03 -0600
> Shanker Donthineni <shankerd@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Shanker,
>
>> We are not checking whether the requested device identifier fits into
>> the device table memory or not. The function its_create_device()
>> assumes that enough memory has been allocated for whole DevID sparse
>> (reported by ITS_TYPER.Devbits) during the ITS probe() and continues
>> to initialize ITS hardware.
>>
>> This assumption is not perfect, sometimes we reduce memory size either
>> because of its size crossing MAX_ORDER-1 or BASERn max size limit. The
>> MAPD command fails if 'Device ID' is outside of device table range.
>>
>> Add a simple validation check to avoid MAPD failures since we are
>> not handling ITS command errors. This change also helps to return an
>> error -ENOMEM instead of success to caller.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Shanker Donthineni <shankerd@...eaurora.org>
>> ---
>> [v1]->[v2]
>> Rebase to v4.5-rc6, edit commit text and simplify code changes
>>
>> drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
>> index 43dfd15..6d986ac 100644
>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
>> @@ -55,6 +55,16 @@ struct its_collection {
>> };
>>
>> /*
>> + * The ITS_BASER structure - contains memeory information and table
>> + * entry size in bytes.
>> + */
>> +struct its_baser {
>> + void *base;
>> + u32 order;
>> + u32 entry_size;
>> +};
>> +
>> +/*
>> * The ITS structure - contains most of the infrastructure, with the
>> * top-level MSI domain, the command queue, the collections, and the
>> * list of devices writing to it.
>> @@ -66,14 +76,12 @@ struct its_node {
>> unsigned long phys_base;
>> struct its_cmd_block *cmd_base;
>> struct its_cmd_block *cmd_write;
>> - struct {
>> - void *base;
>> - u32 order;
>> - } tables[GITS_BASER_NR_REGS];
>> + struct its_baser tables[GITS_BASER_NR_REGS];
>> struct its_collection *collections;
>> struct list_head its_device_list;
>> u64 flags;
>> u32 ite_size;
>> + struct its_baser *device_table;
> nit: grouping this field with the tables array would make it slightly
> nicer.
Sure, I will get rid of this variable and add a simple accessory
function to retrieve device table pointer.
static struct its_baser *its_get_baser(struct its_node *its, u8 type)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < GITS_BASER_NR_REGS; i++) {
if (its->tables[i].type == type)
return &its->tables[i];
}
return NULL;
}
>> };
>>
>> #define ITS_ITT_ALIGN SZ_256
>> @@ -860,6 +868,7 @@ static int its_alloc_tables(const char *node_name, struct its_node *its)
>> * For other tables, only allocate a single page.
>> */
>> if (type == GITS_BASER_TYPE_DEVICE) {
>> + its->device_table = &its->tables[i];
>> /*
>> * 'order' was initialized earlier to the default page
>> * granule of the the ITS. We can't have an allocation
>> @@ -874,6 +883,7 @@ static int its_alloc_tables(const char *node_name, struct its_node *its)
>> node_name, order);
>> }
>> }
>> + its->tables[i].entry_size = entry_size;
>>
>> retry_alloc_baser:
>> alloc_pages = (PAGE_ORDER_TO_SIZE(order) / psz);
>> @@ -1152,6 +1162,12 @@ static struct its_device *its_create_device(struct its_node *its, u32 dev_id,
>> int nr_ites;
>> int sz;
>>
>> + /* Don't allow 'dev_id' that exceeds single, flat table limit */
>> + if (its->device_table &&
>> + (dev_id >= (PAGE_ORDER_TO_SIZE(its->device_table->order) /
>> + its->device_table->entry_size)))
> Assume for a minute we do not have a device table (which would be
> perfectly possible - just think of an ITS with its own private memory,
> like we have with KVM). Shouldn't we also check devid with the number of
> bits that this ITS implements for Device IDs?
Thanks, I thought of same thing. I am planning to handle second
validation check with code changes something like shown below.
/* Don't allow 'dev_id' that exceeds single, flat table limit */
if (baser) {
if (dev_id >= (PAGE_ORDER_TO_SIZE(baser->order) /
baser->entry_size))
return NULL;
} else if (ilog2(dev_id) >= its->device_ids)
return NULL;
>> + return NULL;
>> +
>> dev = kzalloc(sizeof(*dev), GFP_KERNEL);
>> /*
>> * At least one bit of EventID is being used, hence a minimum
> Thanks,
>
> M.
--
Shanker Donthineni
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
Powered by blists - more mailing lists