linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] vfio/type1: Limit DMA mappings per container

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: <20190402051802.GB11008@xz-x1>
Date:   Tue, 2 Apr 2019 13:18:02 +0800
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To:     Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        eric.auger@...hat.com, cohuck@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfio/type1: Limit DMA mappings per container

On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 10:34:13PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 10:41:15 +0800
> Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 02:16:52PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > @@ -1081,8 +1088,14 @@ static int vfio_dma_do_map(struct vfio_iommu *iommu,
> > >  		goto out_unlock;
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > +	if (!atomic_add_unless(&iommu->dma_avail, -1, 0)) {
> > > +		ret = -ENOSPC;
> > > +		goto out_unlock;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > >  	dma = kzalloc(sizeof(*dma), GFP_KERNEL);
> > >  	if (!dma) {
> > > +		atomic_inc(&iommu->dma_avail);  
> > 
> > This should be the only special path to revert the change.  Not sure
> > whether this can be avoided by simply using atomic_read() or even
> > READ_ONCE() (I feel like we don't need atomic ops with dma_avail
> > because we've had the mutex but it of course it doesn't hurt...) to
> > replace atomic_add_unless() above to check against zero then we do
> > +1/-1 in vfio_[un]link_dma() only.  But AFAICT this patch is correct.
> 
> Thanks for the review, you're right, we're only twiddling this atomic
> while holding the iommu->lock mutex, so it appears unnecessary.  Since
> we're within the mutex, I think we don't even need a READ_ONCE.  We can
> simple test it before alloc and decrement after.  Am I missing something
> that would specifically require READ_ONCE within our mutex critical
> section?  Thanks,

I don't know very clear on this and I'd be glad to learn about that.
My understanding is that [READ|WRITE]_ONCE() is the same as volatile
mem operation and will make sure we don't keep variables in the
registers.  So if the mutex semantics can support that (say, a "*addr
= val" following with a mutex_unlock will make sure "val" will
definitely land into memory of "&addr") then I do think it's fine even
without it (which corresponds to WRITE_ONCE(&addr, val) in this case).

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu