linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH V2 0/7] Do not read from descripto ring

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: <20210711120627-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date:   Sun, 11 Jul 2021 12:08:09 -0400
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xieyongji@...edance.com,
        stefanha@...hat.com, file@...t.tu-berlin.de, ashish.kalra@....com,
        konrad.wilk@...cle.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V2 0/7] Do not read from descripto ring

On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 01:38:01PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> 在 2021/5/14 下午7:13, Michael S. Tsirkin 写道:
> > On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 01:38:29PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 04:12:17AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > Let's try for just a bit, won't make this window anyway:
> > > > 
> > > > I have an old idea. Add a way to find out that unmap is a nop
> > > > (or more exactly does not use the address/length).
> > > > Then in that case even with DMA API we do not need
> > > > the extra data. Hmm?
> > > So we actually do have a check for that from the early days of the DMA
> > > API, but it only works at compile time: CONFIG_NEED_DMA_MAP_STATE.
> > > 
> > > But given how rare configs without an iommu or swiotlb are these days
> > > it has stopped to be very useful.  Unfortunately a runtime-version is
> > > not entirely trivial, but maybe if we allow for false positives we
> > > could do something like this
> > > 
> > > bool dma_direct_need_state(struct device *dev)
> > > {
> > > 	/* some areas could not be covered by any map at all */
> > > 	if (dev->dma_range_map)
> > > 		return false;
> > > 	if (force_dma_unencrypted(dev))
> > > 		return false;
> > > 	if (dma_direct_need_sync(dev))
> > > 		return false;
> > > 	return *dev->dma_mask == DMA_BIT_MASK(64);
> > > }
> > > 
> > > bool dma_need_state(struct device *dev)
> > > {
> > > 	const struct dma_map_ops *ops = get_dma_ops(dev);
> > > 
> > > 	if (dma_map_direct(dev, ops))
> > > 		return dma_direct_need_state(dev);
> > > 	return ops->unmap_page ||
> > > 		ops->sync_single_for_cpu || ops->sync_single_for_device;
> > > }
> > Yea that sounds like a good idea. We will need to document that.
> > 
> > 
> > Something like:
> > 
> > /*
> >   * dma_need_state - report whether unmap calls use the address and length
> >   * @dev: device to guery
> >   *
> >   * This is a runtime version of CONFIG_NEED_DMA_MAP_STATE.
> >   *
> >   * Return the value indicating whether dma_unmap_* and dma_sync_* calls for the device
> >   * use the DMA state parameters passed to them.
> >   * The DMA state parameters are: scatter/gather list/table, address and
> >   * length.
> >   *
> >   * If dma_need_state returns false then DMA state parameters are
> >   * ignored by all dma_unmap_* and dma_sync_* calls, so it is safe to pass 0 for
> >   * address and length, and DMA_UNMAP_SG_TABLE_INVALID and
> >   * DMA_UNMAP_SG_LIST_INVALID for s/g table and length respectively.
> >   * If dma_need_state returns true then DMA state might
> >   * be used and so the actual values are required.
> >   */
> > 
> > And we will need DMA_UNMAP_SG_TABLE_INVALID and
> > DMA_UNMAP_SG_LIST_INVALID as pointers to an empty global table and list
> > for calls such as dma_unmap_sgtable that dereference pointers before checking
> > they are used.
> > 
> > 
> > Does this look good?
> > 
> > The table/length variants are for consistency, virtio specifically does
> > not use s/g at the moment, but it seems nicer than leaving
> > users wonder what to do about these.
> > 
> > Thoughts? Jason want to try implementing?
> 
> 
> I can add it in my todo list other if other people are interested in this,
> please let us know.
> 
> But this is just about saving the efforts of unmap and it doesn't eliminate
> the necessary of using private memory (addr, length) for the metadata for
> validating the device inputs.


Besides unmap, why do we need to validate address? length can be
typically validated by specific drivers - not all of them even use it ..

> And just to clarify, the slight regression we see is testing without
> VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM which means DMA API is not used.

I guess this is due to extra cache pressure? Maybe create yet another
array just for DMA state ...

> So I will go to post a formal version of this series and we can start from
> there.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> >