| 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: <f3c1a70e-b2fb-dfc9-3032-b455b77aedde@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 14:51:32 +0200
From: Auger Eric <eric.auger@...hat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Bharat Bhushan <bbhushan2@...vell.com>
Cc: "jean-philippe@...aro.org" <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"eric.auger.pro@...il.com" <eric.auger.pro@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v5] iommu/virtio: Use page size bitmap supported
by endpoint
Hi,
On 5/7/20 1:32 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 11:24:29AM +0000, Bharat Bhushan wrote:
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 5:53 AM
>>> To: Bharat Bhushan <bbhushan2@...vell.com>
>>> Cc: jean-philippe@...aro.org; joro@...tes.org; jasowang@...hat.com;
>>> virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org; iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org;
>>> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; eric.auger.pro@...il.com; eric.auger@...hat.com
>>> Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v5] iommu/virtio: Use page size bitmap supported by
>>> endpoint
>>>
>>> External Email
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 03:00:04PM +0530, Bharat Bhushan wrote:
>>>> Different endpoint can support different page size, probe endpoint if
>>>> it supports specific page size otherwise use global page sizes.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bbhushan2@...vell.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> v4->v5:
>>>> - Rebase to Linux v5.7-rc4
>>>>
>>>> v3->v4:
>>>> - Fix whitespace error
>>>>
>>>> v2->v3:
>>>> - Fixed error return for incompatible endpoint
>>>> - __u64 changed to __le64 in header file
>>>>
>>>> drivers/iommu/virtio-iommu.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>>> include/uapi/linux/virtio_iommu.h | 7 +++++
>>>> 2 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/virtio-iommu.c
>>>> b/drivers/iommu/virtio-iommu.c index d5cac4f46ca5..9513d2ab819e 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/virtio-iommu.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/virtio-iommu.c
>>>> @@ -78,6 +78,7 @@ struct viommu_endpoint {
>>>> struct viommu_dev *viommu;
>>>> struct viommu_domain *vdomain;
>>>> struct list_head resv_regions;
>>>> + u64 pgsize_bitmap;
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> struct viommu_request {
>>>> @@ -415,6 +416,19 @@ static int viommu_replay_mappings(struct
>>> viommu_domain *vdomain)
>>>> return ret;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +static int viommu_set_pgsize_bitmap(struct viommu_endpoint *vdev,
>>>> + struct virtio_iommu_probe_pgsize_mask *mask,
>>>> + size_t len)
>>>> +{
>>>> + u64 pgsize_bitmap = le64_to_cpu(mask->pgsize_bitmap);
>>>> +
>>>> + if (len < sizeof(*mask))
>>>
>>> This is too late to validate length, you have dereferenced it already.
>>> do it before the read pls.
>>
>> Yes, Will change here and other places as well
>>
>>>
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> OK but note that guest will then just proceed to ignore the property. Is that really
>>> OK? Wouldn't host want to know?
>>
>>
>> Guest need to be in sync with device, so yes seems like guest need to tell device which page-size-mask it is using.
>>
>> Corresponding spec change patch (https://www.mail-archive.com/virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org/msg06214.html)
>>
>> Would like Jean/Eric to comment here as well.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> + vdev->pgsize_bitmap = pgsize_bitmap;
>>>
>>> what if bitmap is 0? Is that a valid size? I see a bunch of BUG_ON with that value ...
>>
>> As per spec proposed device is supposed to set at-least one bit.
>> Will add a bug_on her.
>
> Or better fail probe ...
Yes I agree I would rather fail the probe.
>
>> Should we add bug_on or switch to global config page-size mask if this is zero (notify device which page-size-mask it is using).
>
> It's a spec violation, I wouldn't try to use the device.
>
>>>
>>> I also see a bunch of code like e.g. this:
>>>
>>> pg_size = 1UL << __ffs(pgsize_bitmap);
>>>
>>> which probably won't DTRT on a 32 bit guest if the bitmap has bits set in the high
>>> word.
>>>
>>
>> My thought is that in that case viommu_domain_finalise() will fail, do not proceed.
>
> That's undefined behaviour in C. You need to make sure this condition
> is never reached. And spec does not make this illegal at all
> so it looks like we actually need to handle this gracefully.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> static int viommu_add_resv_mem(struct viommu_endpoint *vdev,
>>>> struct virtio_iommu_probe_resv_mem *mem,
>>>> size_t len)
>>>> @@ -499,6 +513,9 @@ static int viommu_probe_endpoint(struct viommu_dev
>>> *viommu, struct device *dev)
>>>> case VIRTIO_IOMMU_PROBE_T_RESV_MEM:
>>>> ret = viommu_add_resv_mem(vdev, (void *)prop, len);
>>>> break;
>>>> + case VIRTIO_IOMMU_PROBE_T_PAGE_SIZE_MASK:
>>>> + ret = viommu_set_pgsize_bitmap(vdev, (void *)prop, len);
>>>> + break;
>>>> default:
>>>> dev_err(dev, "unknown viommu prop 0x%x\n", type);
>>>> }
>>>> @@ -630,7 +647,7 @@ static int viommu_domain_finalise(struct
>>>> viommu_endpoint *vdev,
>>>>
>>>> vdomain->id = (unsigned int)ret;
>>>>
>>>> - domain->pgsize_bitmap = viommu->pgsize_bitmap;
>>>> + domain->pgsize_bitmap = vdev->pgsize_bitmap;
>>>> domain->geometry = viommu->geometry;
>>>>
>>>> vdomain->map_flags = viommu->map_flags;
>>>> @@ -654,6 +671,29 @@ static void viommu_domain_free(struct iommu_domain
>>> *domain)
>>>> kfree(vdomain);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * Check whether the endpoint's capabilities are compatible with
>>>> +other
>>>> + * endpoints in the domain. Report any inconsistency.
>>>> + */
>>>> +static bool viommu_endpoint_is_compatible(struct viommu_endpoint *vdev,
>>>> + struct viommu_domain *vdomain) {
>>>> + struct device *dev = vdev->dev;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (vdomain->viommu != vdev->viommu) {
>>>> + dev_err(dev, "cannot attach to foreign vIOMMU\n");
>>>> + return false;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + if (vdomain->domain.pgsize_bitmap != vdev->pgsize_bitmap) {
>>>> + dev_err(dev, "incompatible domain bitmap 0x%lx != 0x%llx\n",
>>>> + vdomain->domain.pgsize_bitmap, vdev->pgsize_bitmap);
>>>> + return false;
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> I'm confused by this. So let's assume host supports pages sizes of 4k, 2M, 1G. It
>>> signals this in the properties. Nice.
>>> Now domain supports 4k, 2M and that's all. Why is that a problem?
>>> Just don't use 1G ...
>>
>> Is not it too to change the existing domain properties, for devices already attached to domain? New devices must match to domain page-size.
>
> Again if IOMMU supports more page sizes than domain uses, why is
> that a problem? Just don't utilize the bits domain does not use.
I think I agree with you in that case. However it is a problem in the
opposite, ie. when a new device is added and this latter has less
options than the existing domain, right?
Thanks
Eric
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> + return true;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> static int viommu_attach_dev(struct iommu_domain *domain, struct
>>>> device *dev) {
>>>> int i;
>>>> @@ -670,9 +710,8 @@ static int viommu_attach_dev(struct iommu_domain
>>> *domain, struct device *dev)
>>>> * owns it.
>>>> */
>>>> ret = viommu_domain_finalise(vdev, domain);
>>>> - } else if (vdomain->viommu != vdev->viommu) {
>>>> - dev_err(dev, "cannot attach to foreign vIOMMU\n");
>>>> - ret = -EXDEV;
>>>> + } else if (!viommu_endpoint_is_compatible(vdev, vdomain)) {
>>>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>>>> }
>>>> mutex_unlock(&vdomain->mutex);
>>>>
>>>> @@ -886,6 +925,7 @@ static int viommu_add_device(struct device *dev)
>>>>
>>>> vdev->dev = dev;
>>>> vdev->viommu = viommu;
>>>> + vdev->pgsize_bitmap = viommu->pgsize_bitmap;
>>>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&vdev->resv_regions);
>>>> dev_iommu_priv_set(dev, vdev);
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_iommu.h
>>>> b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_iommu.h
>>>> index 48e3c29223b5..2cced7accc99 100644
>>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_iommu.h
>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_iommu.h
>>>
>>> As any virtio UAPI change, you need to copy virtio TC at some point before this is
>>> merged ...
>>
>> Jean already send patch for same
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org/msg06214.html
>>
>> Do we need to do anything additional?
>
>
> Yes, that is spec patch. you need to see the UAPI patch to virtio-dev.
>
>>>
>>>> @@ -111,6 +111,7 @@ struct virtio_iommu_req_unmap {
>>>>
>>>> #define VIRTIO_IOMMU_PROBE_T_NONE 0
>>>> #define VIRTIO_IOMMU_PROBE_T_RESV_MEM 1
>>>> +#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_PROBE_T_PAGE_SIZE_MASK 2
>>>>
>>>> #define VIRTIO_IOMMU_PROBE_T_MASK 0xfff
>>>>
>>>
>>> Does host need to know that guest will ignore the page size mask?
>>> Maybe we need a feature bit.
>>>
>>>> @@ -119,6 +120,12 @@ struct virtio_iommu_probe_property {
>>>> __le16 length;
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> +struct virtio_iommu_probe_pgsize_mask {
>>>> + struct virtio_iommu_probe_property head;
>>>> + __u8 reserved[4];
>>>> + __le64 pgsize_bitmap;
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>
>>> This is UAPI. Document the format of pgsize_bitmap please.
>>
>> Ok,
>>
>> Thanks
>> -Bharat
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> #define VIRTIO_IOMMU_RESV_MEM_T_RESERVED 0
>>>> #define VIRTIO_IOMMU_RESV_MEM_T_MSI 1
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 2.17.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists