linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 14/18] irqdomain: irq_domain_check_msi

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: <f5aacc54-ca8e-cb09-461a-6105346b18b9@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Jan 2017 14:53:50 +0100
From:   Auger Eric <eric.auger@...hat.com>
To:     Tomasz Nowicki <tn@...ihalf.com>, eric.auger.pro@...il.com,
        christoffer.dall@...aro.org, marc.zyngier@....com,
        robin.murphy@....com, alex.williamson@...hat.com,
        will.deacon@....com, joro@...tes.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        jason@...edaemon.net, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:     drjones@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org, punit.agrawal@....com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, geethasowjanya.akula@...il.com,
        diana.craciun@....com, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        pranav.sawargaonkar@...il.com, bharat.bhushan@....com,
        shankerd@...eaurora.org, gpkulkarni@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 14/18] irqdomain: irq_domain_check_msi_remap

Hi Tomasz,

On 17/01/2017 14:40, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> On 11.01.2017 10:41, Eric Auger wrote:
>> This new function checks whether all MSI irq domains
>> implement IRQ remapping. This is useful to understand
>> whether VFIO passthrough is safe with respect to interrupts.
>>
>> On ARM typically an MSI controller can sit downstream
>> to the IOMMU without preventing VFIO passthrough.
>> As such any assigned device can write into the MSI doorbell.
>> In case the MSI controller implements IRQ remapping, assigned
>> devices will not be able to trigger interrupts towards the
>> host. On the contrary, the assignment must be emphasized as
>> unsafe with respect to interrupts.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
>>
>> ---
>> v7 -> v8:
>> - remove goto in irq_domain_check_msi_remap
>> - Added Marc's R-b
>>
>> v5 -> v6:
>> - use irq_domain_hierarchical_is_msi_remap()
>> - comment rewording
>>
>> v4 -> v5:
>> - Handle DOMAIN_BUS_FSL_MC_MSI domains
>> - Check parents
>> ---
>>  include/linux/irqdomain.h |  1 +
>>  kernel/irq/irqdomain.c    | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 23 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/irqdomain.h b/include/linux/irqdomain.h
>> index bc2f571..188eced 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/irqdomain.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/irqdomain.h
>> @@ -222,6 +222,7 @@ struct irq_domain *irq_domain_add_legacy(struct
>> device_node *of_node,
>>                       void *host_data);
>>  extern struct irq_domain *irq_find_matching_fwspec(struct irq_fwspec
>> *fwspec,
>>                             enum irq_domain_bus_token bus_token);
>> +extern bool irq_domain_check_msi_remap(void);
>>  extern void irq_set_default_host(struct irq_domain *host);
>>  extern int irq_domain_alloc_descs(int virq, unsigned int nr_irqs,
>>                    irq_hw_number_t hwirq, int node,
>> diff --git a/kernel/irq/irqdomain.c b/kernel/irq/irqdomain.c
>> index 876e131..d889751 100644
>> --- a/kernel/irq/irqdomain.c
>> +++ b/kernel/irq/irqdomain.c
>> @@ -278,6 +278,28 @@ struct irq_domain
>> *irq_find_matching_fwspec(struct irq_fwspec *fwspec,
>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(irq_find_matching_fwspec);
>>
>>  /**
>> + * irq_domain_check_msi_remap - Check whether all MSI
>> + * irq domains implement IRQ remapping
>> + */
>> +bool irq_domain_check_msi_remap(void)
>> +{
>> +    struct irq_domain *h;
>> +    bool ret = true;
>> +
>> +    mutex_lock(&irq_domain_mutex);
>> +    list_for_each_entry(h, &irq_domain_list, link) {
>> +        if (irq_domain_is_msi(h) &&
>> +            !irq_domain_hierarchical_is_msi_remap(h)) {
>> +            ret = false;
>> +            break;
>> +        }
>> +    }
>> +    mutex_unlock(&irq_domain_mutex);
>> +    return ret;
>> +}
> 
> Above function returns true, even though there is no MSI irq domains. Is
> it intentional ?
>From the VFIO integration point of view this is what we want. If there
is no MSI controller in the system, we have no vulnerability with
respect to IRQ assignment and we consider the system as safe. If
requested I can add a comment?

Thanks

Eric
> 
> Thanks,
> Tomasz