linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] um: read multiple msg from virtio slave request fd

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: <360edf352f888f4607e0411df8a994aa087e9db4.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date:   Wed, 01 Jun 2022 19:13:29 +0200
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     Benjamin Beichler <benjamin.beichler@...-rostock.de>,
        jdike@...toit.com, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com>
Cc:     linux-um@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] um: read multiple msg from virtio slave request fd

On Wed, 2022-06-01 at 15:37 +0000, Benjamin Beichler wrote:
> If VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_INBAND_NOTIFICATIONS is activated, the user mode
> linux virtio irq handler only read one msg from the corresponding socket.
> This creates issues, when the device emulation creates multiple call
> requests (e.g. for multiple virtqueues), as the socket buffer tend to fill
> up and the call requests are delayed.
> 
> This creates a deadlock situation, when the device simulation blocks,
> because of sending a msg and the kernel side blocks because of
> synchronously waiting for an acknowledge of kick request.
> 
> Actually inband notifications are meant to be used in combination with the
> time travel protocol, but it is not required, therefore this corner case
> needs to be handled.

Hmm. How did you run into this? Why would a device send many messages
and not wait for ACK, but the kernel side actually waits for ACK? What
would the use case for that be? Seems a bit odd, if both wait for ACK
there shouldn't be an issue?

Anyway, I guess I don't mind fixing this regardless of whether I see a
use case where it could happen :-)


> +++ b/arch/um/drivers/virtio_uml.c
> @@ -363,45 +363,47 @@ static irqreturn_t vu_req_read_message(struct virtio_uml_device *vu_dev,
>  		struct vhost_user_msg msg;
>  		u8 extra_payload[512];
>  	} msg;
> -	int rc;
> -
> -	rc = vhost_user_recv_req(vu_dev, &msg.msg,
> -				 sizeof(msg.msg.payload) +
> -				 sizeof(msg.extra_payload));
> -
> -	if (rc)

This code changed a bit, you should rebase onto the uml tree's for-next
branch.

> +	while (1) {
> +		if (vhost_user_recv_req(vu_dev, &msg.msg,
> +					sizeof(msg.msg.payload)
> +					+ sizeof(msg.extra_payload)))

prefer to keep the + on the previous line.


That said, my attempt at rebasing this made it all fail completely,
maybe you have better luck :)

johannes