[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZMrp0ofsx8M6fT/S@Asurada-Nvidia>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 16:42:10 -0700
From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
CC: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
"Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
"baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
"cohuck@...hat.com" <cohuck@...hat.com>,
"eric.auger@...hat.com" <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com" <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>,
"chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com" <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>,
"yi.y.sun@...ux.intel.com" <yi.y.sun@...ux.intel.com>,
"peterx@...hat.com" <peterx@...hat.com>,
"jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com"
<shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
"lulu@...hat.com" <lulu@...hat.com>,
"suravee.suthikulpanit@....com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
"iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
"Duan, Zhenzhong" <zhenzhong.duan@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/17] iommufd: IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC allocation with user
data
On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 10:16:17AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > Ideally expanding uAPI structure size should come with new flag bits.
>
> Flags or some kind of 'zero is the same behavior as a smaller struct'
> scheme.
>
> This patch is doing the zero option:
>
> __u32 __reserved;
> + __u32 hwpt_type;
> + __u32 data_len;
> + __aligned_u64 data_uptr;
> };
>
> hwpt_type == 0 means default type
> data_len == 0 means no data
> data_uptr is ignored (zero is safe)
>
> So there is no need to change it
TEST_LENGTH passing ".size = sizeof(struct _struct) - 1" expects a
-EINVAL error code from "if (ucmd.user_size < op->min_size)" check
in the iommufd_fops_ioctl(). This has been working when min_size is
exactly the size of the structure.
When the size of the structure becomes larger than min_size, i.e.
the passing size above is larger than min_size, it bypasses that
min_size sanity and goes down to an ioctl handler with a potential
risk. And actually, the size range can be [min_size, struct_size),
making it harder for us to sanitize with the existing code.
I wonder what's the generic way of sanitizing this case? And, it
seems that TEST_LENGTH needs some rework to test min_size only?
Thanks
Nic
Powered by blists - more mailing lists