[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACycT3veubBFCg9omxLDJJFP7B7QH8++Q+tKmb_M_hmNS45cmw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 13:25:16 +0800
From: Yongji Xie <xieyongji@...edance.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>,
Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...onical.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, bcrl@...ck.org,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Mika Penttilä <mika.penttila@...tfour.com>,
joro@...tes.org,
virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v7 04/12] virtio-blk: Add validation for block size in
config space
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 10:42 PM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 09:39:20PM +0800, Yongji Xie wrote:
> > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 5:56 PM Xie Yongji <xieyongji@...edance.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > This ensures that we will not use an invalid block size
> > > in config space (might come from an untrusted device).
>
> I looked at if I should add this as an untrusted function so that Smatch
> could find these sorts of bugs but this is reading data from the host so
> there has to be some level of trust...
>
It would be great if Smatch could detect this case if possible. The
data might be trusted in traditional VM cases. But now the data can be
read from a userspace daemon when VDUSE is enabled.
> I should add some more untrusted data kvm functions to Smatch. Right
> now I only have kvm_register_read() and I've added kvm_read_guest_virt()
> just now.
>
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Xie Yongji <xieyongji@...edance.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/block/virtio_blk.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > > index ebb4d3fe803f..c848aa36d49b 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > > @@ -826,7 +826,7 @@ static int virtblk_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> > > err = virtio_cread_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE,
> > > struct virtio_blk_config, blk_size,
> > > &blk_size);
> > > - if (!err)
> > > + if (!err && blk_size > 0 && blk_size <= max_size)
> >
> > The check here is incorrect. I will use PAGE_SIZE as the maximum
> > boundary in the new version.
>
> What does this bug look like to the user?
The kernel will panic if the block size is larger than PAGE_SIZE.
> A minimum block size of 1 seems pretty crazy. Surely the minimum should be > higher?
>
Yes, 512 is better here.
Thanks,
Yongji
Powered by blists - more mailing lists