linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v1 6/8] mshv: command line option to skip devices in PV-IOMMU

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: <8d9b6b9a-62b1-95ea-1bb6-258e72c1800d@linux.microsoft.com>
Date:   Wed, 4 Aug 2021 12:33:54 +0530
From:   Praveen Kumar <kumarpraveen@...ux.microsoft.com>
To:     Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linux on Hyper-V List <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
        Vineeth Pillai <viremana@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Sunil Muthuswamy <sunilmut@...rosoft.com>,
        Nuno Das Neves <nunodasneves@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        pasha.tatashin@...een.com, "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
        Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        "open list:IOMMU DRIVERS" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 6/8] mshv: command line option to skip devices in
 PV-IOMMU

On 04-08-2021 03:26, Wei Liu wrote:
>>>  	struct iommu_domain domain;
>>> @@ -774,6 +784,41 @@ static struct iommu_device *hv_iommu_probe_device(struct device *dev)
>>>  	if (!dev_is_pci(dev))
>>>  		return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
>>>  
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * Skip the PCI device specified in `pci_devs_to_skip`. This is a
>>> +	 * temporary solution until we figure out a way to extract information
>>> +	 * from the hypervisor what devices it is already using.
>>> +	 */
>>> +	if (pci_devs_to_skip && *pci_devs_to_skip) {
>>> +		int pos = 0;
>>> +		int parsed;
>>> +		int segment, bus, slot, func;
>>> +		struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev);
>>> +
>>> +		do {
>>> +			parsed = 0;
>>> +
>>> +			sscanf(pci_devs_to_skip + pos,
>>> +				" (%x:%x:%x.%x) %n",
>>> +				&segment, &bus, &slot, &func, &parsed);
>>> +
>>> +			if (parsed <= 0)
>>> +				break;
>>> +
>>> +			if (pci_domain_nr(pdev->bus) == segment &&
>>> +				pdev->bus->number == bus &&
>>> +				PCI_SLOT(pdev->devfn) == slot &&
>>> +				PCI_FUNC(pdev->devfn) == func)
>>> +			{
>>> +				dev_info(dev, "skipped by MSHV IOMMU\n");
>>> +				return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
>>> +			}
>>> +
>>> +			pos += parsed;
>>> +
>>> +		} while (pci_devs_to_skip[pos]);
>>
>> Is there a possibility of pci_devs_to_skip + pos > sizeof(pci_devs_to_skip)
>> and also a valid memory ?
> 
> pos should point to the last parsed position. If parsing fails pos does
> not get updated and the code breaks out of the loop. If parsing is
> success pos should point to either the start of next element of '\0'
> (end of string). To me this is good enough.

The point is, hypothetically the address to pci_devs_to_skip + pos can be valid address (later to '\0'), and thus there is a possibility, that parsing may not fail.
Another, there is also a possibility of sscanf faulting accessing the illegal address, if pci_devs_to_skip[pos] turns out to be not NULL or valid address.

> 
>> I would recommend to have a check of size as well before accessing the
>> array content, just to be safer accessing any memory.
>>
> 
> What check do you have in mind?

Something like,
size_t len = strlen(pci_devs_to_skip);
do {

	len -= parsed;
} while (len);

OR

do {
...
	pos += parsed;
} while (pos < len);

Further, I'm also fine with the existing code, if you think this won't break and already been taken care. Thanks.

Regards,

~Praveen.