| 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 Jun 2020 20:04:45 +0800
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Eugenio Pérez <eperezma@...hat.com>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 01/13] vhost: option to fetch descriptors through an
independent struct
On 2020/6/3 下午5:48, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 03:13:56PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 2020/6/2 下午9:05, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
[...]
>>> +
>>> +static int fetch_indirect_descs(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq,
>>> + struct vhost_desc *indirect,
>>> + u16 head)
>>> +{
>>> + struct vring_desc desc;
>>> + unsigned int i = 0, count, found = 0;
>>> + u32 len = indirect->len;
>>> + struct iov_iter from;
>>> + int ret;
>>> +
>>> + /* Sanity check */
>>> + if (unlikely(len % sizeof desc)) {
>>> + vq_err(vq, "Invalid length in indirect descriptor: "
>>> + "len 0x%llx not multiple of 0x%zx\n",
>>> + (unsigned long long)len,
>>> + sizeof desc);
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + ret = translate_desc(vq, indirect->addr, len, vq->indirect,
>>> + UIO_MAXIOV, VHOST_ACCESS_RO);
>>> + if (unlikely(ret < 0)) {
>>> + if (ret != -EAGAIN)
>>> + vq_err(vq, "Translation failure %d in indirect.\n", ret);
>>> + return ret;
>>> + }
>>> + iov_iter_init(&from, READ, vq->indirect, ret, len);
>>> +
>>> + /* We will use the result as an address to read from, so most
>>> + * architectures only need a compiler barrier here. */
>>> + read_barrier_depends();
>>> +
>>> + count = len / sizeof desc;
>>> + /* Buffers are chained via a 16 bit next field, so
>>> + * we can have at most 2^16 of these. */
>>> + if (unlikely(count > USHRT_MAX + 1)) {
>>> + vq_err(vq, "Indirect buffer length too big: %d\n",
>>> + indirect->len);
>>> + return -E2BIG;
>>> + }
>>> + if (unlikely(vq->ndescs + count > vq->max_descs)) {
>>> + vq_err(vq, "Too many indirect + direct descs: %d + %d\n",
>>> + vq->ndescs, indirect->len);
>>> + return -E2BIG;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + do {
>>> + if (unlikely(++found > count)) {
>>> + vq_err(vq, "Loop detected: last one at %u "
>>> + "indirect size %u\n",
>>> + i, count);
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> + }
>>> + if (unlikely(!copy_from_iter_full(&desc, sizeof(desc), &from))) {
>>> + vq_err(vq, "Failed indirect descriptor: idx %d, %zx\n",
>>> + i, (size_t)indirect->addr + i * sizeof desc);
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> + }
>>> + if (unlikely(desc.flags & cpu_to_vhost16(vq, VRING_DESC_F_INDIRECT))) {
>>> + vq_err(vq, "Nested indirect descriptor: idx %d, %zx\n",
>>> + i, (size_t)indirect->addr + i * sizeof desc);
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + push_split_desc(vq, &desc, head);
>>
>> The error is ignored.
> See above:
>
> if (unlikely(vq->ndescs + count > vq->max_descs))
>
> So it can't fail here, we never fetch unless there's space.
>
> I guess we can add a WARN_ON here.
Yes.
>
>>> + } while ((i = next_desc(vq, &desc)) != -1);
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int fetch_descs(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq)
>>> +{
>>> + unsigned int i, head, found = 0;
>>> + struct vhost_desc *last;
>>> + struct vring_desc desc;
>>> + __virtio16 avail_idx;
>>> + __virtio16 ring_head;
>>> + u16 last_avail_idx;
>>> + int ret;
>>> +
>>> + /* Check it isn't doing very strange things with descriptor numbers. */
>>> + last_avail_idx = vq->last_avail_idx;
>>> +
>>> + if (vq->avail_idx == vq->last_avail_idx) {
>>> + if (unlikely(vhost_get_avail_idx(vq, &avail_idx))) {
>>> + vq_err(vq, "Failed to access avail idx at %p\n",
>>> + &vq->avail->idx);
>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>> + }
>>> + vq->avail_idx = vhost16_to_cpu(vq, avail_idx);
>>> +
>>> + if (unlikely((u16)(vq->avail_idx - last_avail_idx) > vq->num)) {
>>> + vq_err(vq, "Guest moved used index from %u to %u",
>>> + last_avail_idx, vq->avail_idx);
>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + /* If there's nothing new since last we looked, return
>>> + * invalid.
>>> + */
>>> + if (vq->avail_idx == last_avail_idx)
>>> + return vq->num;
>>> +
>>> + /* Only get avail ring entries after they have been
>>> + * exposed by guest.
>>> + */
>>> + smp_rmb();
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + /* Grab the next descriptor number they're advertising */
>>> + if (unlikely(vhost_get_avail_head(vq, &ring_head, last_avail_idx))) {
>>> + vq_err(vq, "Failed to read head: idx %d address %p\n",
>>> + last_avail_idx,
>>> + &vq->avail->ring[last_avail_idx % vq->num]);
>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + head = vhost16_to_cpu(vq, ring_head);
>>> +
>>> + /* If their number is silly, that's an error. */
>>> + if (unlikely(head >= vq->num)) {
>>> + vq_err(vq, "Guest says index %u > %u is available",
>>> + head, vq->num);
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + i = head;
>>> + do {
>>> + if (unlikely(i >= vq->num)) {
>>> + vq_err(vq, "Desc index is %u > %u, head = %u",
>>> + i, vq->num, head);
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> + }
>>> + if (unlikely(++found > vq->num)) {
>>> + vq_err(vq, "Loop detected: last one at %u "
>>> + "vq size %u head %u\n",
>>> + i, vq->num, head);
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> + }
>>> + ret = vhost_get_desc(vq, &desc, i);
>>> + if (unlikely(ret)) {
>>> + vq_err(vq, "Failed to get descriptor: idx %d addr %p\n",
>>> + i, vq->desc + i);
>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>> + }
>>> + ret = push_split_desc(vq, &desc, head);
>>> + if (unlikely(ret)) {
>>> + vq_err(vq, "Failed to save descriptor: idx %d\n", i);
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> + }
>>> + } while ((i = next_desc(vq, &desc)) != -1);
>>> +
>>> + last = peek_split_desc(vq);
>>> + if (unlikely(last->flags & VRING_DESC_F_INDIRECT)) {
>>> + pop_split_desc(vq);
>>> + ret = fetch_indirect_descs(vq, last, head);
>>
>> Note that this means we don't supported chained indirect descriptors which
>> complies the spec but we support this in vhost_get_vq_desc().
> Well the spec says:
> A driver MUST NOT set both VIRTQ_DESC_F_INDIRECT and VIRTQ_DESC_F_NEXT in flags.
>
> Did I miss anything?
>
No, but I meant current vhost_get_vq_desc() supports chained indirect
descriptor. Not sure if there's an application that depends on this
silently.
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists