[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMz4kuKZOpAXG=Lwii5Cb6q2EKoMUJOEmDz8X=dmVv+JivWf=w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 19:24:29 +0800
From: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>
To: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
Cc: Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, bgoswami@...eaurora.org,
sr@...x.de, gustavo@...eddedor.com,
Phil Burk <philburk@...gle.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
mchehab+samsung@...nel.org, sboyd@...nel.org,
Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
anna-maria@...utronix.de, Jon Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Jeffery Miller <jmiller@...erware.com>,
Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
joe@...ches.com, Takashi Sakamoto <o-takashi@...amocchi.jp>,
colyli@...e.de, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ALSA: core: Add DMA share buffer support
On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 at 18:20, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 11:10:25 +0100,
> Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 10:25:37 +0100,
> > Baolin Wang wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Jaroslav,
> > > On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 at 21:43, Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dne 23.1.2019 v 13:46 Leo Yan napsal(a):
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 12:58:51PM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > > >> On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 21:25:35 +0100,
> > > > >> Mark Brown wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 03:15:43PM +0100, Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
> > > > >>>> Dne 21.1.2019 v 13:40 Mark Brown napsal(a):
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>> It was the bit about adding more extended permission control that I was
> > > > >>>>> worried about there, not the initial O_APPEND bit. Indeed the O_APPEND
> > > > >>>>> bit sounds like it might also work from the base buffer sharing point of
> > > > >>>>> view, I have to confess I'd not heard of that feature before (it didn't
> > > > >>>>> come up in the discussion when Eric raised this in Prague).
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> With permissions, I meant to make possible to restrict the file
> > > > >>>> descriptor operations (ioctls) for the depending task (like access to
> > > > >>>> the DMA buffer, synchronize it for the non-coherent platforms and maybe
> > > > >>>> read/write the actual position, delay etc.). It should be relatively
> > > > >>>> easy to implement using the snd_pcm_file structure.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Right, that's what I understood you to mean. If you want to have a
> > > > >>> policy saying "it's OK to export a PCM file descriptor if it's only got
> > > > >>> permissions X and Y" the security module is going to need to know about
> > > > >>> the mechanism for setting those permissions. With dma_buf that's all a
> > > > >>> bit easier as there's less new stuff, though I've no real idea how much
> > > > >>> of a big deal that actually is.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> There are many ways to implement such a thing, yeah. If we'd need an
> > > > >> implementation that is done solely in the sound driver layer, I can
> > > > >> imagine to introduce either a new ioctl or an open flag (like O_EXCL)
> > > > >> to specify the restricted sharing. That is, a kind of master / slave
> > > > >> model where only the master is allowed to manipulate the stream while
> > > > >> the slave can mmap, read/write and get status.
> > > > >
> > > > > In order to support EXCLUSIVE mode, it is necessary to convert the
> > > > > /dev/snd/ descriptor to an anon_inode:dmabuffer file descriptor.
> > > > > SELinux allows that file descriptor to be passed to the client. It can
> > > > > also be used by the AAudioService.
> > > >
> > > > Okay, so this is probably the only point which we should resolve for the
> > > > already available DMA buffer sharing in ALSA (the O_APPEND flag).
> > > >
> > > > I had another glance to your dma-buf implementation and I see many
> > > > things which might cause problems:
> > > >
> > > > - allow to call dma-buf ioctls only when the audio device is in specific
> > > > state (stream is not running)
> > >
> > > Right. Will fix.
> > >
> > > > - as Takashi mentioned, if we return another file-descriptor (dma-buf
> > > > export) to the user space and the server closes the main pcm
> > > > file-descriptor (the client does not) - the result will be a crash (dma
> > > > buffer will be freed, but referenced through the dma-buf interface)
> > >
> > > Yes, will fix.
> >
> > There are a few more overlooked problems. A part of them was already
> > mentioned in my previous reply, but let me repeat:
> >
> > - The racy ioctls have to be considered; you can perform this export
> > ioctl concurrently, and both of them write and mix up the setup,
> > which is obviously broken.
> >
> > - The PCM buffer can be re-allocated on the fly. If the current
> > buffer is abandoned while exporting, it leads to the UAF.
> >
> > - Similarly, what if the PCM stream that is attached is closed without
> > detaching itself? Or, what if the PCM stream attaches itself twice
> > without detaching?
> >
> > - The driver may provide its own mmap method, and you can't hard-code
> > the mmap implementation as currently in snd_pcm_dmabuf_mmap().
> >
> > I suppose you can drop of most of the code in snd_pcm_dmabuf_map(),
> > instead, assign PCM substream in obj, and call snd_pcm_mmap_data()
> > with the given VMA. If this really works, it manages the mmap
> > refcount, so the previous two issues should be covered there.
> > But it needs more consideration...
>
> Erm, obviously it's not enough. Each attach / detach needs to manage
> the refcount, too, for covering the cases above. It can re-use the
> PCM mmap_refount, though.
But we've used the DMA buffer file's refcounting to manage the DMA
buffer. So is this not enough?
--
Baolin Wang
Best Regards
Powered by blists - more mailing lists