linux-kernel

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: <CACGkMEv2j2cJkSFfxTmaRxJ+SH6actSCZsALjvvDUPgg0h-KeA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 30 Mar 2022 10:38:06 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>,
        Keir Fraser <keirf@...gle.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re:

On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 6:04 AM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 08:13:57PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 29 2022 at 10:37, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 10:35:21AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > We are trying to fix the driver since at the moment it does not
> > > have the dev->ok flag at all.
> > >
> > > And I suspect virtio is not alone in that.
> > > So it would have been nice if there was a standard flag
> > > replacing the driver-specific dev->ok above, and ideally
> > > would also handle the case of an interrupt triggering
> > > too early by deferring the interrupt until the flag is set.
> > >
> > > And in fact, it does kind of exist: IRQF_NO_AUTOEN, and you would call
> > > enable_irq instead of dev->ok = true, except
> > > - it doesn't work with affinity managed IRQs
> > > - it does not work with shared IRQs
> > >
> > > So using dev->ok as you propose above seems better at this point.
> >
> > Unless there is a big enough amount of drivers which could make use of a
> > generic mechanism for that.
> >
> > >> If any driver does this in the wrong order, then the driver is
> > >> broken.
> > >
> > > I agree, however:
> > > $ git grep synchronize_irq `git grep -l request_irq drivers/net/`|wc -l
> > > 113
> > > $ git grep -l request_irq drivers/net/|wc -l
> > > 397
> > >
> > > I suspect there are more drivers which in theory need the
> > > synchronize_irq dance but in practice do not execute it.
> >
> > That really depends on when the driver requests the interrupt, when
> > it actually enables the interrupt in the device itself
>
> This last point does not matter since we are talking about protecting
> against buggy/malicious devices. They can inject the interrupt anyway
> even if driver did not configure it.
>
> > and how the
> > interrupt service routine works.
> >
> > So just doing that grep dance does not tell much. You really have to do
> > a case by case analysis.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >         tglx
>
>
> I agree. In fact, at least for network the standard approach is to
> request interrupts in the open call, virtio net is unusual
> in doing it in probe. We should consider changing that.
> Jason?

This probably works only for virtio-net and it looks like not trivial
since we don't have a specific core API to request interrupts.

Thanks

>
> --
> MST
>