linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/9] virtio_pci: harden MSI-X interrupts

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: <98ddcf92-b0c8-77c3-d1ca-9855896a2600@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Sep 2021 10:20:19 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Hetzelt, Felicitas" <f.hetzelt@...berlin.de>,
        "kaplan, david" <david.kaplan@....com>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        pbonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
        James E J Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Peter H Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@...nel.org>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] virtio_pci: harden MSI-X interrupts


在 2021/9/14 上午6:31, Thomas Gleixner 写道:
> On Mon, Sep 13 2021 at 16:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 09:38:30PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 13 2021 at 15:07, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 2:50 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>>>> But doen't "irq is disabled" basically mean "we told the hypervisor
>>>>>> to disable the irq"?  What extractly prevents hypervisor from
>>>>>> sending the irq even if guest thinks it disabled it?
>>>>> More generally, can't we for example blow away the
>>>>> indir_desc array that we use to keep the ctx pointers?
>>>>> Won't that be enough?
>>>> I'm not sure how it is related to the indirect descriptor but an
>>>> example is that all the current driver will assume:
>>>>
>>>> 1) the interrupt won't be raised before virtio_device_ready()
>>>> 2) the interrupt won't be raised after reset()
>>> If that assumption exists, then you better keep the interrupt line
>>> disabled until virtio_device_ready() has completed
>> started not completed. device is allowed to send
>> config interrupts right after DRIVER_OK status is set by
>> virtio_device_ready.
> Whatever:
>
>   * Define the exact point from which on the driver is able to handle the
>     interrupt and put the enable after that point
>
>   * Define the exact point from which on the driver is unable to handle
>     the interrupt and put the disable before that point


Yes, this is exactly what this patch (and INTX patch) want to achieve. 
The driver should only able to handle the interrupt after 
virtio_device_ready() but before reset().

Thanks


>
> The above is blury.
>
>>> and disable it again
>>> before reset() is invoked. That's a question of general robustness and
>>> not really a question of trusted hypervisors and encrypted guests.
>> We can do this for some MSIX interrupts, sure. Not for shared interrupts though.
> See my reply to the next patch. The problem is the same:
>
>   * Define the exact point from which on the driver is able to handle the
>     interrupt and allow the handler to proceed after that point
>
>   * Define the exact point from which on the driver is unable to handle
>     the interrupt and ensure that the handler denies to proceed before
>     that point
>
> Same story just a different mechanism.
>
> Thanks,
>
>          tglx
>