[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZMrqEAOh82SBvyaq@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 20:43:12 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...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 Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 04:42:10PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> 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?
Yes, it should technically test using offsetof and a matching set of
struct members.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists