| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 06:34:41 +0000
From: Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
CC: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kwankhede@...dia.com" <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
"cjia@...dia.com" <cjia@...dia.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCHv1 6/7] vfio/mdev: Fix aborting mdev child device removal
if one fails
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 5:33 PM
> To: Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
> Cc: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>; kvm@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org; kwankhede@...dia.com; cjia@...dia.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCHv1 6/7] vfio/mdev: Fix aborting mdev child device
> removal if one fails
>
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 19:59:58 +0000
> Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com> wrote:
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 12:39 PM
> > > To: Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
> > > Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> > > kwankhede@...dia.com; alex.williamson@...hat.com; cjia@...dia.com
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCHv1 6/7] vfio/mdev: Fix aborting mdev child device
> > > removal if one fails
> > >
> > > On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 22:45:44 -0500
> > > Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > device_for_each_child() stops executing callback function for
> > > > remaining child devices, if callback hits an error.
> > > > Each child mdev device is independent of each other.
> > > > While unregistering parent device, mdev core must remove all child
> > > > mdev devices.
> > > > Therefore, mdev_device_remove_cb() always returns success so that
> > >
> > > s/always returns/must always return/ ?
> > >
> > Must always return.
> > :-)
> >
> > > > device_for_each_child doesn't abort if one child removal hits error.
> > > >
> > > > While at it, improve remove and unregister functions for below
> simplicity.
> > > >
> > > > There isn't need to pass forced flag pointer during mdev parent
> > > > removal which invokes mdev_device_remove(). So simplify the flow.
> > > >
> > > > mdev_device_remove() is called from two paths.
> > > > 1. mdev_unregister_driver()
> > > > mdev_device_remove_cb()
> > > > mdev_device_remove()
> > > > 2. remove_store()
> > > > mdev_device_remove()
> > > >
> > > > When device is removed by user using remote_store(), device under
> > > > removal is mdev device.
> > > > When device is removed during parent device removal using generic
> > > > child iterator, mdev check is already done using dev_is_mdev().
> > >
> > > Isn't there still a possible race condition (which you seem to
> > > address with the following patch)? IOW, you cannot remove that loop-
> under-mutex yet?
> >
> > The loop checks if the remove() is called on the mdev or not.
> > This is already checked from both the paths from remove is invoked.
> > I didn't remove the 'active' check. So it should be fine.
>
> I believe the loop was actually trying to sanitize the mdev pointer, for
> example if it's not in our list of devices we should not even de-reference
> 'active'. I think maybe this was more fallout from allowing remove to fail.
> For instance, it seems like manipulating active within the list lock critical
> section should provide us with mutual exclusion, the mdev object should be
> valid until the sysfs remove attribute is removed, but remove_store() itself
> removes that attribute allowing mdev_remove_sysfs_files() to skip over it,
> but
> mdev_remove_device() can fail on the remove_store() path causing it to
> recreate the remove attribute. Now we're in trouble because I'm not sure if
> recreating the sysfs attribute ever takes a reference to the device. If it does,
> it's at least racy. Is it time to put the nail in the coffin of these remove
> failure paths? It seems too fundamental to our code base that drivers
> cannot do this. Thanks,
>
Yes, I agree.
We should follow the right remove/create sequence.
+ we need this for power management too anyway.
There is no point in re-inventing the device model differently.
If this series looks fine/merged, I can send v1 of the patch that fixes the callback order.
Or you want to update this series?
I haven't had chance to go through other email thread yet.
> Alex
>
> > > >
> > > > Hence, remove the unnecessary loop in mdev_device_remove().
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 7b96953bc640 ("vfio: Mediated device Core driver")
> > > > Reviewed-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c | 23 +++++------------------
> > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c
> > > > b/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c index 836d319..aefcf34 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c
> > > > @@ -149,10 +149,10 @@ static int mdev_device_remove_ops(struct
> > > > mdev_device *mdev, bool force_remove)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Maybe add
> > >
> > > /* only called during parent device unregistration */
> > >
> > > to avoid headscratching in the future?
> > >
> > > > static int mdev_device_remove_cb(struct device *dev, void *data) {
> > > > - if (!dev_is_mdev(dev))
> > > > - return 0;
> > > > + if (dev_is_mdev(dev))
> > > > + mdev_device_remove(dev, true);
> > > >
> > > > - return mdev_device_remove(dev, data ? *(bool *)data : true);
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > /*
> > > > @@ -240,7 +240,6 @@ int mdev_register_device(struct device *dev,
> > > > const struct mdev_parent_ops *ops) void
> > > > mdev_unregister_device(struct device *dev) {
> > > > struct mdev_parent *parent;
> > > > - bool force_remove = true;
> > > >
> > > > mutex_lock(&parent_list_lock);
> > > > parent = __find_parent_device(dev); @@ -254,8 +253,7 @@ void
> > > > mdev_unregister_device(struct device *dev)
> > > > list_del(&parent->next);
> > > > class_compat_remove_link(mdev_bus_compat_class, dev, NULL);
> > > >
> > > > - device_for_each_child(dev, (void *)&force_remove,
> > > > - mdev_device_remove_cb);
> > > > + device_for_each_child(dev, NULL, mdev_device_remove_cb);
> > > >
> > > > parent_remove_sysfs_files(parent);
> > > >
> > >
> > > Up to this chunk, the patch looks good to me.
> > >
> > > > @@ -348,24 +346,13 @@ int mdev_device_create(struct kobject *kobj,
> > > >
> > > > int mdev_device_remove(struct device *dev, bool force_remove) {
> > > > - struct mdev_device *mdev, *tmp;
> > > > + struct mdev_device *mdev;
> > > > struct mdev_parent *parent;
> > > > struct mdev_type *type;
> > > > int ret;
> > > >
> > > > mdev = to_mdev_device(dev);
> > > > -
> > > > mutex_lock(&mdev_list_lock);
> > > > - list_for_each_entry(tmp, &mdev_list, next) {
> > > > - if (tmp == mdev)
> > > > - break;
> > > > - }
> > > > -
> > > > - if (tmp != mdev) {
> > > > - mutex_unlock(&mdev_list_lock);
> > > > - return -ENODEV;
> > > > - }
> > > > -
> > > > if (!mdev->active) {
> > > > mutex_unlock(&mdev_list_lock);
> > > > return -EAGAIN;
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists