linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 5/9] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Refactor write_ctx

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]

Date:   Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:40:52 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     Michael Shavit <mshavit@...gle.com>
Cc:     iommu@...ts.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, robin.murphy@....com,
        nicolinc@...dia.com, jgg@...dia.com, jean-philippe@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/9] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Refactor write_ctx_desc

On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 05:15:50PM +0800, Michael Shavit wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 9:50 PM Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > > -     ret = arm_smmu_write_ctx_desc(smmu_domain, mm->pasid, cd);
> > > -     if (ret)
> > > +     ret = arm_smmu_write_ctx_desc_devices(smmu_domain, mm->pasid, cd);
> > > +     if (ret) {
> > > +             arm_smmu_write_ctx_desc_devices(smmu_domain, mm->pasid, NULL);
> >
> > Why is it safe to drop the lock between these two calls?
> 
> Hmmm this is a tricky question.
> Tracing through the SVA flow, it seems like there's a scenario where
> multiple masters (with the same upstream SMMU device) can be attached
> to the same primary/non-sva domain, in which case calling
> iommu_attach_device_pasid on one device will write the CD entry for
> both masters. This is still the case even with this patch series, and
> changing this behavior will be the subject of a separate follow-up.
> This is weird, especially since the second master need not even have
> the sva_enabled bit set. This also means that the list of attached
> masters can indeed change between these two calls if that second
> master (not the one used on the iommu_attach_device_pasid call leading
> to this code) is detached/attached at the same time. It's hard for me
> to reason about whether this is safe or not, since this is already
> weird behavior...

I really think the writing of the context descriptors should look atomic;
dropping the lock half way through a failed update and then coming back
to NULL them out definitely isn't correct. So I think you've probably pushed
the locking too far down the stack.

Will