linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] virtio-blk: Add validation for block size in config space

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]

Date:   Tue, 10 Aug 2021 12:59:11 +0800
From:   Yongji Xie <xieyongji@...edance.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
        virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] virtio-blk: Add validation for block size in config space

On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 11:05 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>
> 在 2021/8/9 下午6:16, Xie Yongji 写道:
> > An untrusted device might presents an invalid block size
> > in configuration space. This tries to add validation for it
> > in the validate callback and clear the VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE
> > feature bit if the value is out of the supported range.
> >
> > And we also double check the value in virtblk_probe() in
> > case that it's changed after the validation.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Xie Yongji <xieyongji@...edance.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/block/virtio_blk.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> >   1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > index 4b49df2dfd23..afb37aac09e8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > +++ b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > @@ -692,6 +692,28 @@ static const struct blk_mq_ops virtio_mq_ops = {
> >   static unsigned int virtblk_queue_depth;
> >   module_param_named(queue_depth, virtblk_queue_depth, uint, 0444);
> >
> > +static int virtblk_validate(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> > +{
> > +     u32 blk_size;
> > +
> > +     if (!vdev->config->get) {
> > +             dev_err(&vdev->dev, "%s failure: config access disabled\n",
> > +                     __func__);
> > +             return -EINVAL;
> > +     }
> > +
> > +     if (!virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE))
> > +             return 0;
> > +
> > +     blk_size = virtio_cread32(vdev,
> > +                     offsetof(struct virtio_blk_config, blk_size));
> > +
> > +     if (blk_size < SECTOR_SIZE || blk_size > PAGE_SIZE)
> > +             __virtio_clear_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE);
>
>
> I wonder if it's better to just fail here as what we did for probe().
>

Looks like we don't need to do that since we already clear the
VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE to tell the device that we don't use the block
size in configuration space. Just like what we did in
virtnet_validate().

Thanks,
Yongji