linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] iommu/dma: limit iova free size to unmmaped iova

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: <2d873ab9-ebb9-3c2d-f129-55a036ab47d0@arm.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 May 2020 10:24:39 +0100
From:   Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To:     guptap@...eaurora.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     mhocko@...e.com, joro@...tes.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        owner-linux-mm@...ck.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu/dma: limit iova free size to unmmaped iova

On 2020-05-22 07:25, guptap@...eaurora.org wrote:
> On 2020-05-22 01:46, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> On 2020-05-21 12:30, Prakash Gupta wrote:
>>> Limit the iova size while freeing based on unmapped size. In absence of
>>> this even with unmap failure, invalid iova is pushed to iova rcache and
>>> subsequently can cause panic while rcache magazine is freed.
>>
>> Can you elaborate on that panic?
>>
> We have seen couple of stability issues around this.
> Below is one such example:
> 
> kernel BUG at kernel/msm-4.19/drivers/iommu/iova.c:904!
> iova_magazine_free_pfns
> iova_rcache_insert
> free_iova_fast
> __iommu_unmap_page
> iommu_dma_unmap_page

OK, so it's not some NULL dereference or anything completely unexpected, 
that's good.

> It turned out an iova pfn 0 got into iova_rcache. One possibility I see is
> where client unmap with invalid dma_addr. The unmap call will fail and 
> warn on
> and still try to free iova. This will cause invalid pfn to be inserted into
> rcache. As and when the magazine with invalid pfn will be freed
> private_find_iova() will return NULL for invalid iova and meet bug 
> condition.

That would indeed be a bug in whatever driver made the offending 
dma_unmap call.

>>> Signed-off-by: Prakash Gupta <guptap@...eaurora.org>
>>>
>>> :100644 100644 4959f5df21bd 098f7d377e04 M    drivers/iommu/dma-iommu.c
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/dma-iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/dma-iommu.c
>>> index 4959f5df21bd..098f7d377e04 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/dma-iommu.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/dma-iommu.c
>>> @@ -472,7 +472,8 @@ static void __iommu_dma_unmap(struct device *dev, 
>>> dma_addr_t dma_addr,
>>>         if (!cookie->fq_domain)
>>>           iommu_tlb_sync(domain, &iotlb_gather);
>>> -    iommu_dma_free_iova(cookie, dma_addr, size);
>>> +    if (unmapped)
>>> +        iommu_dma_free_iova(cookie, dma_addr, unmapped);
>>
>> Frankly, if any part of the unmap fails then things have gone
>> catastrophically wrong already, but either way this isn't right. The
>> IOVA API doesn't support partial freeing - an IOVA *must* be freed
>> with its original size, or not freed at all, otherwise it will corrupt
>> the state of the rcaches and risk a cascade of further misbehaviour
>> for future callers.
>>
> I agree, we shouldn't be freeing the partial iova. Instead just making
> sure if unmap was successful should be sufficient before freeing iova. 
> So change
> can instead be something like this:
> 
> -    iommu_dma_free_iova(cookie, dma_addr, size);
> +    if (unmapped)
> +        iommu_dma_free_iova(cookie, dma_addr, size);
> 
>> TBH my gut feeling here is that you're really just trying to treat a
>> symptom of another bug elsewhere, namely some driver calling
>> dma_unmap_* or dma_free_* with the wrong address or size in the first
>> place.
>>
> This condition would arise only if driver calling dma_unmap/free_* with 0
> iova_pfn. This will be flagged with a warning during unmap but will trigger
> panic later on while doing unrelated dma_map/unmap_*. If unmapped has 
> already
> failed for invalid iova, there is no reason we should consider this as 
> valid
> iova and free. This part should be fixed.

I disagree. In general, if drivers call the DMA API incorrectly it is 
liable to lead to data loss, memory corruption, and various other 
unpleasant misbehaviour - it is not the DMA layer's job to attempt to 
paper over driver bugs.

There *is* an argument for downgrading the BUG_ON() in 
iova_magazine_free_pfns() to a WARN_ON(), since frankly it isn't a 
sufficiently serious condition to justify killing the whole machine 
immediately, but NAK to bodging the iommu-dma mid-layer to "fix" that. A 
serious bug already happened elsewhere, so trying to hide the fallout 
really doesn't help anyone.

Robin.

> On 2020-05-22 00:19, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> I think we need a cc:stable here?
>>
> Added now.
> 
> Thanks,
> Prakash