linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 17/22] s390: vfio-ap: zeroize the AP queues.

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 13 Aug 2018 08:57:55 +0200
From:   Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
To:     Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, freude@...ibm.com, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
        heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com,
        kwankhede@...dia.com, bjsdjshi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        pbonzini@...hat.com, alex.williamson@...hat.com,
        pmorel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, alifm@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        mjrosato@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, jjherne@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        thuth@...hat.com, pasic@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, berrange@...hat.com,
        fiuczy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, buendgen@...ibm.com,
        frankja@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 17/22] s390: vfio-ap: zeroize the AP queues.

On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 12:24:47 -0400
Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 08/10/2018 07:16 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 12:49:08 +0200
> > Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >  
> >> On 10/08/2018 11:14, Cornelia Huck wrote:  
> >>> On Wed,  8 Aug 2018 10:44:27 -0400
> >>> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>>     
> >>>> From: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> Let's call PAPQ(ZAPQ) to zeroize a queue:
> >>>>
> >>>> * For each queue configured for a mediated matrix device
> >>>>     when it is released.
> >>>>
> >>>> Zeroizing a queue resets the queue, clears all pending
> >>>> messages for the queue entries and disables adapter interruptions
> >>>> associated with the queue.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
> >>>> Reviewed-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
> >>>> Tested-by: Michael Mueller <mimu@...ux.ibm.com>
> >>>> Tested-by: Farhan Ali <alifm@...ux.ibm.com>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>    drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c     |   29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >>>>    drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h |   25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>    2 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> @@ -788,7 +812,10 @@ static void vfio_ap_mdev_release(struct mdev_device *mdev)
> >>>>    {
> >>>>    	struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev = mdev_get_drvdata(mdev);
> >>>>    
> >>>> -	kvm_arch_crypto_clear_masks(matrix_mdev->kvm);
> >>>> +	if (matrix_mdev->kvm)
> >>>> +		kvm_arch_crypto_clear_masks(matrix_mdev->kvm);  
> >>> Confused. Why is the check for matrix_mdev->kvm added here?  
> >> When using the KVM notifier we can get two notifications:  
> >> -> KVM is here / is comming
> >> -> KVM is not here / disappearing  
> >>
> >> In the first case we initialize matrix_mdev->kvm with a pointer to KVM
> >> In the second case we nullify the pointer.
> >>
> >> During the open of the mediated device, the guest should have been started
> >> or we refuse to start.
> >>
> >> During the close of the mediated device, the guest should be there, but
> >> we have no certitude that the guest did not disappear before the VFIO
> >> file being closed.
> >> Since we do not allow multiple guests using the same mediated device
> >> this case should not happen with QEMU. But I am not sure that
> >> a rogue user program could not stop KVM before closing the VFIO
> >> mediated device.  
> > I'm not sure why the check is introduced in this patch, though. But
> > maybe I just need weekend :)  
> 
> Good catch, it belongs in patch 15 where the function is introduced.
> Is that the only reason for your objection?

Yes, this is what confused me. Moving this to patch 15 sounds like a
good idea :)

> 
> >  
> >> Maybe Alex can confirm this point, if not we can remove the test.  
> 
>