| 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: <20200203141236.4e2d7a74@w520.home>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 14:12:36 -0700
From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Lu Baolu" <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
"Yi Liu" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"Christoph Hellwig" <hch@...radead.org>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] iommu/uapi: Add helper function for size lookup
On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 12:41:43 -0800
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 11:27:08 -0700
> Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 15:51:25 -0800
> > Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Alex,
> > > Sorry I missed this part in the previous reply. Comments below.
> > >
> > > On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 15:19:51 -0700
> > > Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Also, is the 12-bytes of padding in struct iommu_gpasid_bind_data
> > > > excessive with this new versioning scheme? Per rule #2 I'm not
> > > > sure if we're allowed to repurpose those padding bytes,
> > > We can still use the padding bytes as long as there is a new flag
> > > bit to indicate the validity of the new filed within the padding.
> > > I should have made it clear in rule #2 when mentioning the flags
> > > bits. Should define what extension constitutes.
> > > How about this?
> > > "
> > > * 2. Data structures are open to extension but closed to
> > > modification.
> > > * Extension should leverage the padding bytes first where a new
> > > * flag bit is required to indicate the validity of each new
> > > member.
> > > * The above rule for padding bytes also applies to adding new
> > > union
> > > * members.
> > > * After padding bytes are exhausted, new fields must be added
> > > at the
> > > * end of each data structure with 64bit alignment. Flag bits
> > > can be
> > > * added without size change but existing ones cannot be altered.
> > > *
> > > "
> > > So if we add new field by doing re-purpose of padding bytes, size
> > > lookup result will remain the same. New code would recognize the new
> > > flag, old code stays the same.
> > >
> > > VFIO layer checks for UAPI compatibility and size to copy, version
> > > sanity check and flag usage are done in the IOMMU code.
> > >
> > > > but if we add
> > > > fields to the end of the structure as the scheme suggests, we're
> > > > stuck with not being able to expand the union for new fields.
> > > Good point, it does sound contradictory. I hope the rewritten rule
> > > #2 address that.
> > > Adding data after the union should be extremely rare. Do you see any
> > > issues with the example below?
> > >
> > > offsetofend() can still find the right size.
> > > e.g.
> > > V1
> > > struct iommu_gpasid_bind_data {
> > > __u32 version;
> > > #define IOMMU_PASID_FORMAT_INTEL_VTD 1
> > > __u32 format;
> > > #define IOMMU_SVA_GPASID_VAL (1 << 0) /* guest PASID valid */
> > > __u64 flags;
> > > __u64 gpgd;
> > > __u64 hpasid;
> > > __u64 gpasid;
> > > __u32 addr_width;
> > > __u8 padding[12];
> > > /* Vendor specific data */
> > > union {
> > > struct iommu_gpasid_bind_data_vtd vtd;
> > > };
> > > };
> > >
> > > const static int
> > > iommu_uapi_data_size[NR_IOMMU_UAPI_TYPE][IOMMU_UAPI_VERSION] = { /*
> > > IOMMU_UAPI_BIND_GPASID */ {offsetofend(struct
> > > iommu_gpasid_bind_data, vtd)}, ...
> > > };
> > >
> > > V2, Add new_member at the end (forget padding for now).
> > > struct iommu_gpasid_bind_data {
> > > __u32 version;
> > > #define IOMMU_PASID_FORMAT_INTEL_VTD 1
> > > __u32 format;
> > > #define IOMMU_SVA_GPASID_VAL (1 << 0) /* guest PASID valid */
> > > #define IOMMU_NEW_MEMBER_VAL (1 << 1) /* new member added */
> > > __u64 flags;
> > > __u64 gpgd;
> > > __u64 hpasid;
> > > __u64 gpasid;
> > > __u32 addr_width;
> > > __u8 padding[12];
> > > /* Vendor specific data */
> > > union {
> > > struct iommu_gpasid_bind_data_vtd vtd;
> > > };
> > > __u64 new_member;
> > > };
> > > const static int
> > > iommu_uapi_data_size[NR_IOMMU_UAPI_TYPE][IOMMU_UAPI_VERSION] = { /*
> > > IOMMU_UAPI_BIND_GPASID */
> > > {offsetofend(struct iommu_gpasid_bind_data,
> > > vtd), offsetofend(struct
> > > iommu_gpasid_bind_data,new_member)},
> > >
> > > };
> > >
> > > V3, Add smmu to the union,larger than vtd
> > >
> > > struct iommu_gpasid_bind_data {
> > > __u32 version;
> > > #define IOMMU_PASID_FORMAT_INTEL_VTD 1
> > > #define IOMMU_PASID_FORMAT_INTEL_SMMU 2
> > > __u32 format;
> > > #define IOMMU_SVA_GPASID_VAL (1 << 0) /* guest PASID valid */
> > > #define IOMMU_NEW_MEMBER_VAL (1 << 1) /* new member added */
> > > #define IOMMU_SVA_SMMU_SUPP (1 << 2) /* SMMU data supported
> > > */ __u64 flags;
> > > __u64 gpgd;
> > > __u64 hpasid;
> > > __u64 gpasid;
> > > __u32 addr_width;
> > > __u8 padding[12];
> > > /* Vendor specific data */
> > > union {
> > > struct iommu_gpasid_bind_data_vtd vtd;
> > > struct iommu_gpasid_bind_data_smmu smmu;
> > > };
> > > __u64 new_member;
> > > };
> > > const static int
> > > iommu_uapi_data_size[NR_IOMMU_UAPI_TYPE][IOMMU_UAPI_VERSION] = {
> > > /* IOMMU_UAPI_BIND_GPASID */
> > > {offsetofend(struct iommu_gpasid_bind_data,vtd),
> > > offsetofend(struct iommu_gpasid_bind_data, new_member),
> > > offsetofend(struct iommu_gpasid_bind_data, new_member)},
> > > ...
> > > };
> > >
> >
> > How are you not breaking rule #3, "Versions are backward compatible"
> > with this? If the kernel is at version 3 and userspace is at version
> > 2 then new_member exists at different offsets of the structure. The
> > kernels iommu_uapi_data_size for V2 changed between version 2 and 3.
> > Thanks,
> >
> You are right. if we want to add new member to the end of the structure
> as well as expanding union, I think we have to fix the size of the
> union. Would this work? (just an example for one struct)
>
>
> @@ -344,6 +348,11 @@ struct iommu_gpasid_bind_data_vtd {
> * @gpasid: Process address space ID used for the guest mm in guest
> IOMMU
> * @addr_width: Guest virtual address width
> * @padding: Reserved for future use (should be zero)
> + * @dummy Reserve space for vendor specific data in the union. New
> + * members added to the union cannot exceed the size of
> dummy.
> + * The fixed size union is needed to allow further
> expansion
> + * after the end of the union while still maintain backward
> + * compatibility.
> * @vtd: Intel VT-d specific data
> *
> * Guest to host PASID mapping can be an identity or non-identity,
> where guest @@ -365,6 +374,7 @@ struct iommu_gpasid_bind_data {
> __u8 padding[12];
> /* Vendor specific data */
> union {
> + __u8 dummy[128];
> struct iommu_gpasid_bind_data_vtd vtd;
> };
> };
It's not the most space efficient thing and we're just guessing at what
might need to be added into that union in future, but it works... until
it doesn't ;) One might also argue that we could inflate the padding
field even further to serve the same purpose. The only other route I
can think of would be to let the user specify the offset of the
variable size data from the start of the structure, for example similar
to how we're laying out vfio migration region or how we do capabilities
in vfio ioctls. This is where passing an argsz for each ioctl comes in
handy so we're not limited to a structure, we can link various
structures together in a chain. Of course that requires work on both
the user and kernel side to pack and unpack, but it leaves a lot of
flexibility in extending it. Thanks,
Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists