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: <CACGkMEu0MhQqNbrg9WkyGBboFU5RSqCs1W8LpksW4mO7hGxd7g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Jul 2023 09:56:29 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     Eugenio Perez Martin <eperezma@...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 Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 4:42 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 05, 2023 at 03:55:23PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 4, 2023 at 6:38 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?
> >
> > Vhost-net is one example at last. It polls a socket as well, so it
> > starts to access the ring immediately after DRIVER_OK.
> >
> > Thanks
>
>
> For sure but that is not vdpa.

Somehow via vp_vdpa that I'm usually testing vDPA patches.

The problem is that it's very hard to audit all vDPA devices now if it
is not defined in the spec before they are invented.

Thanks

>
> > >
> > > > 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
> > > > >
> > >
>