linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] vfio/pci: Decouple PCI_COMMAND_MEMORY bit checks from is

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: <852ca3a6-6521-a3c4-c70d-383be3c2dc2d@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Sep 2020 12:57:37 -0400
From:   Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc:     bhelgaas@...gle.com, schnelle@...ux.ibm.com, pmorel@...ux.ibm.com,
        mpe@...erman.id.au, oohall@...il.com, cohuck@...hat.com,
        kevin.tian@...el.com, hca@...ux.ibm.com, gor@...ux.ibm.com,
        borntraeger@...ibm.com, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] vfio/pci: Decouple PCI_COMMAND_MEMORY bit checks
 from is_virtfn

On 9/22/20 12:40 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 08:43:29 -0400
> Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 9/10/20 10:59 AM, Matthew Rosato wrote:
>>> While it is true that devices with is_virtfn=1 will have a Memory Space
>>> Enable bit that is hard-wired to 0, this is not the only case where we
>>> see this behavior -- For example some bare-metal hypervisors lack
>>> Memory Space Enable bit emulation for devices not setting is_virtfn
>>> (s390). Fix this by instead checking for the newly-added
>>> no_command_memory bit which directly denotes the need for
>>> PCI_COMMAND_MEMORY emulation in vfio.
>>>
>>> Fixes: abafbc551fdd ("vfio-pci: Invalidate mmaps and block MMIO access on disabled memory")
>>> Signed-off-by: Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>
>>
>> Polite ping on this patch as the other 2 have now received maintainer
>> ACKs or reviews.  I'm concerned about this popping up in distros as
>> abafbc551fdd was a CVE fix.  Related, see question from the cover:
>>
>> - Restored the fixes tag to patch 3 (but the other 2 patches are
>>     now pre-reqs -- cc stable 5.8?)
> 
> I've got these queued in my local branch which I'll push to next for
> v5.10.  I'm thinking that perhaps the right thing would be to add the
> fixes tag to all three patches, otherwise I could see that the PCI/VF
> change might get picked as a dependency, but not the s390 specific one.
> Does this sound correct to everyone?  Thanks,

Sounds good to me.  Thanks!