[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8735la41qb.ffs@tglx>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 22:38:04 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/11] iommu/sva: Assign a PASID to mm on PASID
allocation and free it on mm exit
On Wed, Jan 26 2022 at 09:36, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 03:23:42PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 25 2022 at 07:18, Fenghua Yu wrote:
>> While looking at ioasid_put() usage I tripped over the following UAF
>> issue:
>>
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c
>> @@ -4817,8 +4817,10 @@ static int aux_domain_add_dev(struct dma
>> auxiliary_unlink_device(domain, dev);
>> link_failed:
>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&device_domain_lock, flags);
>> - if (list_empty(&domain->subdevices) && domain->default_pasid > 0)
>> + if (list_empty(&domain->subdevices) && domain->default_pasid > 0) {
>> ioasid_put(domain->default_pasid);
>> + domain->default_pasid = INVALID_IOASID;
>> + }
>>
>> return ret;
>> }
>> @@ -4847,8 +4849,10 @@ static void aux_domain_remove_dev(struct
>>
>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&device_domain_lock, flags);
>>
>> - if (list_empty(&domain->subdevices) && domain->default_pasid > 0)
>> + if (list_empty(&domain->subdevices) && domain->default_pasid > 0) {
>> ioasid_put(domain->default_pasid);
>> + domain->default_pasid = INVALID_IOASID;
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> static int prepare_domain_attach_device(struct iommu_domain *domain,
>
> The above patch fixes an existing issue. I will put it in a separate patch,
> right?
Correct.
> It cannot be applied cleanly to the upstream tree. Do you want me to base
> the above patch (and the whole patch set) to the upstream tree or a specific
> tip branch?
Against Linus tree please so that the bugfix applies.
> I will fold the following patch into patch #5. The patch #11 (the doc patch)
> also needs to remove one paragraph talking about refcount.
>
> So I will send the whole patch set with the following changes:
> 1. One new bug fix patch (the above patch)
> 2. Updated patch #5 (with the following patch folded)
> 3. Updated patch #11 (removing refcount description)
Looks good.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists