linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] vdpa: reject F_ENABLE_AFTER_DRIVER

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: <20230704114159-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 4 Jul 2023 11:45:12 -0400
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Eugenio Perez Martin <eperezma@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@....com>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vdpa: reject F_ENABLE_AFTER_DRIVER_OK if backend does
 not support it

On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 01:36:11PM +0200, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 4, 2023 at 12:38 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 12:25:32PM +0200, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 4:52 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 04:22:18PM +0200, Eugenio Pérez wrote:
> > > > > With the current code it is accepted as long as userland send it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Although userland should not set a feature flag that has not been
> > > > > offered to it with VHOST_GET_BACKEND_FEATURES, the current code will not
> > > > > complain for it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since there is no specific reason for any parent to reject that backend
> > > > > feature bit when it has been proposed, let's control it at vdpa frontend
> > > > > level. Future patches may move this control to the parent driver.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: 967800d2d52e ("vdpa: accept VHOST_BACKEND_F_ENABLE_AFTER_DRIVER_OK backend feature")
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Eugenio Pérez <eperezma@...hat.com>
> > > >
> > > > Please do send v3. And again, I don't want to send "after driver ok" hack
> > > > upstream at all, I merged it in next just to give it some testing.
> > > > We want RING_ACCESS_AFTER_KICK or some such.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Current devices do not support that semantic.
> >
> > Which devices specifically access the ring after DRIVER_OK but before
> > a kick?
> >
> 
> Previous versions of the QEMU LM series did a spurious kick to start
> traffic at the LM destination [1]. When it was proposed, that spurious
> kick was removed from the series because to check for descriptors
> after driver_ok, even without a kick, was considered work of the
> parent driver.
> 
> I'm ok to go back to this spurious kick, but I'm not sure if the hw
> will read the ring before the kick actually. I can ask.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> [1] https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2023-01/msg02775.html

Let's find out. We need to check for ENABLE_AFTER_DRIVER_OK too, no?



> > > My plan was to convert
> > > it in vp_vdpa if needed, and reuse the current vdpa ops. Sorry if I
> > > was not explicit enough.
> > >
> > > The only solution I can see to that is to trap & emulate in the vdpa
> > > (parent?) driver, as talked in virtio-comment. But that complicates
> > > the architecture:
> > > * Offer VHOST_BACKEND_F_RING_ACCESS_AFTER_KICK
> > > * Store vq enable state separately, at
> > > vdpa->config->set_vq_ready(true), but not transmit that enable to hw
> > > * Store the doorbell state separately, but do not configure it to the
> > > device directly.
> > >
> > > But how to recover if the device cannot configure them at kick time,
> > > for example?
> > >
> > > Maybe we can just fail if the parent driver does not support enabling
> > > the vq after DRIVER_OK? That way no new feature flag is needed.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Sent with Fixes: tag pointing to git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mst
> > > > > commit. Please let me know if I should send a v3 of [1] instead.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230609121244-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org/T/
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  drivers/vhost/vdpa.c | 7 +++++--
> > > > >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c b/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c
> > > > > index e1abf29fed5b..a7e554352351 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c
> > > > > @@ -681,18 +681,21 @@ static long vhost_vdpa_unlocked_ioctl(struct file *filep,
> > > > >  {
> > > > >       struct vhost_vdpa *v = filep->private_data;
> > > > >       struct vhost_dev *d = &v->vdev;
> > > > > +     const struct vdpa_config_ops *ops = v->vdpa->config;
> > > > >       void __user *argp = (void __user *)arg;
> > > > >       u64 __user *featurep = argp;
> > > > > -     u64 features;
> > > > > +     u64 features, parent_features = 0;
> > > > >       long r = 0;
> > > > >
> > > > >       if (cmd == VHOST_SET_BACKEND_FEATURES) {
> > > > >               if (copy_from_user(&features, featurep, sizeof(features)))
> > > > >                       return -EFAULT;
> > > > > +             if (ops->get_backend_features)
> > > > > +                     parent_features = ops->get_backend_features(v->vdpa);
> > > > >               if (features & ~(VHOST_VDPA_BACKEND_FEATURES |
> > > > >                                BIT_ULL(VHOST_BACKEND_F_SUSPEND) |
> > > > >                                BIT_ULL(VHOST_BACKEND_F_RESUME) |
> > > > > -                              BIT_ULL(VHOST_BACKEND_F_ENABLE_AFTER_DRIVER_OK)))
> > > > > +                              parent_features))
> > > > >                       return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > > >               if ((features & BIT_ULL(VHOST_BACKEND_F_SUSPEND)) &&
> > > > >                    !vhost_vdpa_can_suspend(v))
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.39.3
> > > >
> >