linux-kernel - [PATCH 5.4 51/62] PCI/MSI: Enforce that MSI-X table entry is masked for update

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:   Mon, 16 Aug 2021 15:02:23 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Subject: [PATCH 5.4 51/62] PCI/MSI: Enforce that MSI-X table entry is masked for update

From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>

commit da181dc974ad667579baece33c2c8d2d1e4558d5 upstream.

The specification (PCIe r5.0, sec 6.1.4.5) states:

    For MSI-X, a function is permitted to cache Address and Data values
    from unmasked MSI-X Table entries. However, anytime software unmasks a
    currently masked MSI-X Table entry either by clearing its Mask bit or
    by clearing the Function Mask bit, the function must update any Address
    or Data values that it cached from that entry. If software changes the
    Address or Data value of an entry while the entry is unmasked, the
    result is undefined.

The Linux kernel's MSI-X support never enforced that the entry is masked
before the entry is modified hence the Fixes tag refers to a commit in:
      git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git

Enforce the entry to be masked across the update.

There is no point in enforcing this to be handled at all possible call
sites as this is just pointless code duplication and the common update
function is the obvious place to enforce this.

Fixes: f036d4ea5fa7 ("[PATCH] ia32 Message Signalled Interrupt support")
Reported-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Tested-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Reviewed-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Acked-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210729222542.462096385@linutronix.de
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
 drivers/pci/msi.c |   15 +++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)

--- a/drivers/pci/msi.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/msi.c
@@ -316,13 +316,28 @@ void __pci_write_msi_msg(struct msi_desc
 		/* Don't touch the hardware now */
 	} else if (entry->msi_attrib.is_msix) {
 		void __iomem *base = pci_msix_desc_addr(entry);
+		bool unmasked = !(entry->masked & PCI_MSIX_ENTRY_CTRL_MASKBIT);
 
 		if (!base)
 			goto skip;
 
+		/*
+		 * The specification mandates that the entry is masked
+		 * when the message is modified:
+		 *
+		 * "If software changes the Address or Data value of an
+		 * entry while the entry is unmasked, the result is
+		 * undefined."
+		 */
+		if (unmasked)
+			__pci_msix_desc_mask_irq(entry, PCI_MSIX_ENTRY_CTRL_MASKBIT);
+
 		writel(msg->address_lo, base + PCI_MSIX_ENTRY_LOWER_ADDR);
 		writel(msg->address_hi, base + PCI_MSIX_ENTRY_UPPER_ADDR);
 		writel(msg->data, base + PCI_MSIX_ENTRY_DATA);
+
+		if (unmasked)
+			__pci_msix_desc_mask_irq(entry, 0);
 	} else {
 		int pos = dev->msi_cap;
 		u16 msgctl;