linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/14] cxl/mem: Find device capabilities

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: <a789317e-2ac2-10a1-dedd-1851972e3d6b@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 1 Feb 2021 15:58:09 -0800 (PST)
From:   David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:     Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com>
cc:     linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
        Chris Browy <cbrowy@...ry-design.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        Jon Masters <jcm@...masters.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        daniel.lll@...baba-inc.com,
        "John Groves (jgroves)" <jgroves@...ron.com>,
        "Kelley, Sean V" <sean.v.kelley@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/14] cxl/mem: Find device capabilities

On Mon, 1 Feb 2021, Ben Widawsky wrote:

> > I haven't seen the update to 8.2.8.4.5 to know yet :)
> > 
> > You make a good point of at least being able to interact with the driver.  
> > I think you could argue that if the driver binds, then the payload size is 
> > accepted, in which case it would be strange to get an EINVAL when using 
> > the ioctl with anything >1MB.
> > 
> > Concern was that if we mask off the reserved bits from the command 
> > register that we could be masking part of the payload size that is being 
> > passed if the accepted max is >1MB.  Idea was to avoid any possibility of 
> > this inconsistency.  If this is being checked for ioctl, seems like it's 
> > checking reserved bits.
> > 
> > But maybe I should just wait for the spec update.
> 
> Well, I wouldn't hold your breath (it would be an errata in this case anyway).
> My preference would be to just allow allow mailbox payload size to be 2^31 and
> not deal with this.
> 
> My question was how strongly do you feel it's an error that should prevent
> binding.
> 

I don't have an objection to binding, but doesn't this require that the 
check in cxl_validate_cmd_from_user() guarantees send_cmd->size_in cannot 
be greater than 1MB?