| 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: <5FC3163CFD30C246ABAA99954A238FA83863CD45@FRAEML521-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:16:14 +0000
From: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>
To: Auger Eric <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
CC: "pmorel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <pmorel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>,
"xuwei (O)" <xuwei5@...wei.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC v2 2/5] vfio/type1: Check reserve region conflict and
update iova list
Hi Eric,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Auger Eric [mailto:eric.auger@...hat.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 8:32 AM
> To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>; Shameerali Kolothum
> Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>
> Cc: pmorel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com; kvm@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org; Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>; John Garry
> <john.garry@...wei.com>; xuwei (O) <xuwei5@...wei.com>
> Subject: Re: [RFC v2 2/5] vfio/type1: Check reserve region conflict and update
> iova list
>
> Hi Shameer,
>
> On 18/01/18 01:04, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 16:45:28 +0000
> > Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This retrieves the reserved regions associated with dev group and
> >> checks for conflicts with any existing dma mappings. Also update
> >> the iova list excluding the reserved regions.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Shameer Kolothum
> <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c | 161
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >> 1 file changed, 159 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> >> index 11cbd49..7609070 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> >> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
> >> #include <linux/device.h>
> >> #include <linux/fs.h>
> >> #include <linux/iommu.h>
> >> +#include <linux/list_sort.h>
> >> #include <linux/module.h>
> >> #include <linux/mm.h>
> >> #include <linux/rbtree.h>
> >> @@ -1199,6 +1200,20 @@ static bool vfio_iommu_has_sw_msi(struct
> iommu_group *group, phys_addr_t *base)
> >> return ret;
> >> }
> >>
> >
> > /* list_sort helper */
> >
> >> +static int vfio_resv_cmp(void *priv, struct list_head *a, struct list_head *b)
> >> +{
> >> + struct iommu_resv_region *ra, *rb;
> >> +
> >> + ra = container_of(a, struct iommu_resv_region, list);
> >> + rb = container_of(b, struct iommu_resv_region, list);
> >> +
> >> + if (ra->start < rb->start)
> >> + return -1;
> >> + if (ra->start > rb->start)
> >> + return 1;
> >> + return 0;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> static int vfio_insert_iova(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end,
> >> struct list_head *head)
> >> {
> >> @@ -1274,6 +1289,24 @@ static int vfio_iommu_valid_aperture(struct
> vfio_iommu *iommu,
> >> }
> >>
> >> /*
> >> + * Check reserved region conflicts with existing dma mappings
> >> + */
> >> +static int vfio_iommu_resv_region_conflict(struct vfio_iommu *iommu,
> >> + struct list_head *resv_regions)
> >> +{
> >> + struct iommu_resv_region *region;
> >> +
> >> + /* Check for conflict with existing dma mappings */
> >> + list_for_each_entry(region, resv_regions, list) {
> >> + if (vfio_find_dma_overlap(iommu, region->start,
> >> + region->start + region->length - 1))
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + return 0;
> >> +}
> >
> > This basically does the same test as vfio_iommu_valid_aperture but
> > properly names it a conflict test. Please be consistent. Should this
> > also return bool, "conflict" is a yes/no answer.
> >
> >> +
> >> +/*
> >> * Adjust the iommu aperture window if new aperture is a valid one
> >> */
> >> static int vfio_iommu_iova_aper_adjust(struct vfio_iommu *iommu,
> >> @@ -1316,6 +1349,51 @@ static int vfio_iommu_iova_aper_adjust(struct
> vfio_iommu *iommu,
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >> +/*
> >> + * Check and update iova region list in case a reserved region
> >> + * overlaps the iommu iova range
> >> + */
> >> +static int vfio_iommu_iova_resv_adjust(struct vfio_iommu *iommu,
> >> + struct list_head *resv_regions)
> >
> > "resv_region" in previous function, just "resv" here, use consistent
> > names. Also, what are we adjusting. Maybe "exclude" is a better term.
> >
> >> +{
> >> + struct iommu_resv_region *resv;
> >> + struct list_head *iova = &iommu->iova_list;
> >> + struct vfio_iova *n, *next;
> >> +
> >> + list_for_each_entry(resv, resv_regions, list) {
> >> + phys_addr_t start, end;
> >> +
> >> + start = resv->start;
> >> + end = resv->start + resv->length - 1;
> >> +
> >> + list_for_each_entry_safe(n, next, iova, list) {
> >> + phys_addr_t a, b;
> >> + int ret = 0;
> >> +
> >> + a = n->start;
> >> + b = n->end;
> >
> > 'a' and 'b' variables actually make this incredibly confusing. Use
> > better variable names or just drop them entirely, it's much easier to
> > follow as n->start & n->end.
> >
> >> + /* No overlap */
> >> + if ((start > b) || (end < a))
> >> + continue;
> >> + /* Split the current node and create holes */
> >> + if (start > a)
> >> + ret = vfio_insert_iova(a, start - 1, &n->list);
> >> + if (!ret && end < b)
> >> + ret = vfio_insert_iova(end + 1, b, &n->list);
> >> + if (ret)
> >> + return ret;
> >> +
> >> + list_del(&n->list);
> >
> > This is trickier than it appears and deserves some explanation. AIUI,
> > we're actually inserting duplicate entries for the remainder at the
> > start of the range and then at the end of the range (and the order is
> > important here because we're inserting each before the current node),
> > and then we delete the current node. So the iova_list is kept sorted
> > through this process, though temporarily includes some bogus, unordered
> > sub-sets.
> >
> >> + kfree(n);
> >> + }
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + if (list_empty(iova))
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> +
> >> + return 0;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> static int vfio_iommu_type1_attach_group(void *iommu_data,
> >> struct iommu_group *iommu_group)
> >> {
> >> @@ -1327,6 +1405,8 @@ static int vfio_iommu_type1_attach_group(void
> *iommu_data,
> >> bool resv_msi, msi_remap;
> >> phys_addr_t resv_msi_base;
> >> struct iommu_domain_geometry geo;
> >> + struct list_head group_resv_regions;
> >> + struct iommu_resv_region *resv, *resv_next;
> >>
> >> mutex_lock(&iommu->lock);
> >>
> >> @@ -1404,6 +1484,14 @@ static int vfio_iommu_type1_attach_group(void
> *iommu_data,
> >> if (ret)
> >> goto out_detach;
> >>
> >> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&group_resv_regions);
> >> + iommu_get_group_resv_regions(iommu_group, &group_resv_regions);
> >> + list_sort(NULL, &group_resv_regions, vfio_resv_cmp);
> iommu_get_group_resv_regions returns a sorted list (see
> iommu_insert_resv_regions kerneldoc comment). You can have overlapping
> regions of different types though.
Hmm..I am not sure. It looks like it is sorted only if the regions are of same type.
"* The new element is sorted by address with respect to the other
* regions of the same type."
So hypothetically if there are two groups with regions like,
Group 1.
Start size type
0x0000 0x1000 1
0x2000 0x1000 1
0x5000 0x1000 1
Group 2
Start size type
0x2000 0x4000 2
0x7000 0x1000 1
Then the iommu_get_group_resv_regions() will return,
0x0000 0x1000 1
0x2000 0x1000 1
0x5000 0x1000 1
0x2000 0x4000 2
0x7000 0x1000 1
But honestly I am not sure the above is a valid scenario or not. I am
happy to remove the sorting if such a case will never happen.
Please let me know.
Thanks,
Shameer
> Eric
> >> +
> >> + ret = vfio_iommu_resv_region_conflict(iommu, &group_resv_regions);
> >> + if (ret)
> >> + goto out_detach;
> >> +
> >> resv_msi = vfio_iommu_has_sw_msi(iommu_group, &resv_msi_base);
> >>
> >> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&domain->group_list);
> >> @@ -1434,11 +1522,15 @@ static int vfio_iommu_type1_attach_group(void
> *iommu_data,
> >> d->prot == domain->prot) {
> >> iommu_detach_group(domain->domain,
> iommu_group);
> >> if (!iommu_attach_group(d->domain, iommu_group)) {
> >> + ret = vfio_iommu_iova_resv_adjust(iommu,
> >> +
> &group_resv_regions);
> >> + if (!ret)
> >> + goto out_domain;
> >
> > The above function is not without side effects if it fails, it's
> > altered the iova_list. It needs to be valid for the remaining domains
> > if we're going to continue.
> >
> >> +
> >> list_add(&group->next, &d->group_list);
> >> iommu_domain_free(domain->domain);
> >> kfree(domain);
> >> - mutex_unlock(&iommu->lock);
> >> - return 0;
> >> + goto done;
> >> }
> >>
> >> ret = iommu_attach_group(domain->domain,
> iommu_group);
> >> @@ -1465,8 +1557,15 @@ static int vfio_iommu_type1_attach_group(void
> *iommu_data,
> >> if (ret)
> >> goto out_detach;
> >>
> >> + ret = vfio_iommu_iova_resv_adjust(iommu, &group_resv_regions);
> >> + if (ret)
> >> + goto out_detach;
> >
> > Can't we process the reserved regions once before we get here rather
> > than have two separate call points that do the same thing? In order to
> > roll back from errors above, it seems like we need to copy iova_list
> > and work on the copy, installing it and deleting the original only on
> > success.
> >
> >> +
> >> list_add(&domain->next, &iommu->domain_list);
> >>
> >> +done:
> >> + list_for_each_entry_safe(resv, resv_next, &group_resv_regions, list)
> >> + kfree(resv);
> >> mutex_unlock(&iommu->lock);
> >>
> >> return 0;
> >> @@ -1475,6 +1574,8 @@ static int vfio_iommu_type1_attach_group(void
> *iommu_data,
> >> iommu_detach_group(domain->domain, iommu_group);
> >> out_domain:
> >> iommu_domain_free(domain->domain);
> >> + list_for_each_entry_safe(resv, resv_next, &group_resv_regions, list)
> >> + kfree(resv);
> >> out_free:
> >> kfree(domain);
> >> kfree(group);
> >> @@ -1559,6 +1660,60 @@ static void vfio_iommu_iova_aper_refresh(struct
> vfio_iommu *iommu)
> >> node->end = end;
> >> }
> >>
> >> +/*
> >> + * Called when a group is detached. The reserved regions for that
> >> + * group can be part of valid iova now. But since reserved regions
> >> + * may be duplicated among groups, populate the iova valid regions
> >> + list again.
> >> + */
> >> +static void vfio_iommu_iova_resv_refresh(struct vfio_iommu *iommu)
> >> +{
> >> + struct vfio_domain *d;
> >> + struct vfio_group *g;
> >> + struct vfio_iova *node, *tmp;
> >> + struct iommu_resv_region *resv, *resv_next;
> >> + struct list_head resv_regions;
> >> + phys_addr_t start, end;
> >> +
> >> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&resv_regions);
> >> +
> >> + list_for_each_entry(d, &iommu->domain_list, next) {
> >> + list_for_each_entry(g, &d->group_list, next)
> >> + iommu_get_group_resv_regions(g->iommu_group,
> >> + &resv_regions);
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + if (list_empty(&resv_regions))
> >> + return;
> >> +
> >> + list_sort(NULL, &resv_regions, vfio_resv_cmp);
> >> +
> >> + node = list_first_entry(&iommu->iova_list, struct vfio_iova, list);
> >> + start = node->start;
> >> + node = list_last_entry(&iommu->iova_list, struct vfio_iova, list);
> >> + end = node->end;
> >
> > list_sort() only sorts based on ->start, we added reserved regions for
> > all our groups to one list, we potentially have multiple entries with
> > the same ->start. How can we be sure that the last one in the list
> > actually has the largest ->end value?
> >
> >> +
> >> + /* purge the iova list and create new one */
> >> + list_for_each_entry_safe(node, tmp, &iommu->iova_list, list) {
> >> + list_del(&node->list);
> >> + kfree(node);
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + if (vfio_iommu_iova_aper_adjust(iommu, start, end)) {
> >> + pr_warn("%s: Failed to update iova aperture. VFIO DMA map
> request may fail\n",
> >> + __func__);
> >
> > Map requests "will" fail. Is this the right error strategy? Detaching
> > a group cannot fail. Aren't we better off leaving the iova_list we had
> > in place? If we cannot expand the iova aperture when a group is
> > removed, a user can continue unscathed.
> >
> >> + goto done;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + /* adjust the iova with current reserved regions */
> >> + if (vfio_iommu_iova_resv_adjust(iommu, &resv_regions))
> >> + pr_warn("%s: Failed to update iova list with reserve regions.
> VFIO DMA map request may fail\n",
> >> + __func__);
> >
> > Same.
> >
> >> +done:
> >> + list_for_each_entry_safe(resv, resv_next, &resv_regions, list)
> >> + kfree(resv);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> static void vfio_iommu_type1_detach_group(void *iommu_data,
> >> struct iommu_group *iommu_group)
> >> {
> >> @@ -1617,6 +1772,8 @@ static void vfio_iommu_type1_detach_group(void
> *iommu_data,
> >> break;
> >> }
> >>
> >> + vfio_iommu_iova_resv_refresh(iommu);
> >> +
> >> detach_group_done:
> >> mutex_unlock(&iommu->lock);
> >> }
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists