linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] iommu: fix return error code in iommu_probe

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: <9e7481f4-e55e-6c7a-dde9-62912c6e5eb4@huawei.com>
Date:   Thu, 26 Nov 2020 10:29:57 +0800
From:   Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@...wei.com>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
CC:     Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
        <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu: fix return error code in iommu_probe_device()


On 2020/11/25 19:35, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 09:54:34AM +0800, Yang Yingliang wrote:
>> On 2020/11/18 6:41, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 07:11:28PM +0800, Yang Yingliang wrote:
>>>> On 2020/11/17 17:40, Lu Baolu wrote:
>>>>> On 2020/11/17 10:52, Yang Yingliang wrote:
>>>>>> If iommu_group_get() failed, it need return error code
>>>>>> in iommu_probe_device().
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixes: cf193888bfbd ("iommu: Move new probe_device path...")
>>>>>> Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@...wei.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>     drivers/iommu/iommu.c | 4 +++-
>>>>>>     1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
>>>>>> index b53446bb8c6b..6f4a32df90f6 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
>>>>>> @@ -253,8 +253,10 @@ int iommu_probe_device(struct device *dev)
>>>>>>             goto err_out;
>>>>>>           group = iommu_group_get(dev);
>>>>>> -    if (!group)
>>>>>> +    if (!group) {
>>>>>> +        ret = -ENODEV;
>>>>> Can you please explain why you use -ENODEV here?
>>>> Before 79659190ee97 ("iommu: Don't take group reference in
>>>> iommu_alloc_default_domain()"), in
>>>>
>>>> iommu_alloc_default_domain(), if group is NULL, it will return -ENODEV.
>>> Hmm. While I think the patch is ok, I'm not sure it qualifies as a fix.
>>> Has iommu_probe_device() ever propagated this error? The commit you
>>> identify in the 'Fixes:' tag doesn't seem to change this afaict.
>> I think after this commit 439945e74a4b ("iommu: Move default domain
>> allocation to iommu_probe_device()"),
> That SHA doesn't exist in my tree (maybe you mean 6e1aa2049154?). But even
> then, I'm not sure 6e1aa2049154 is actually broken if you look at the
> interaction with group creation in __iommu_probe_device().
>
> In fact, isn't that the case in mainline too? If __iommu_probe_device()
> returns 0, then we _know_ a group exists and so iommu_group_get() will
> succeed. I'm still happy with the patch in case this changes in future,
> but it doesn't appear to be fixing anything. Do you agree?

Yes, I look into the __iommu_probe_device(), if it can't get group, it 
will return error

first.  Do I need send a v2 without the fix tag ?

>
> Will
> .