linux-kernel - [PATCH 1/2] swiotlb: Fix allocation alignment requirement when searching slots

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: <20240126151956.10014-2-will@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 15:19:55 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: kernel-team@...roid.com,
	Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
	Petr Tesarik <petr.tesarik1@...wei-partners.com>,
	Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] swiotlb: Fix allocation alignment requirement when searching slots

Commit bbb73a103fbb ("swiotlb: fix a braino in the alignment check fix"),
which was a fix for commit 0eee5ae10256 ("swiotlb: fix slot alignment
checks"), causes a functional regression with vsock in a virtual machine
using bouncing via a restricted DMA SWIOTLB pool.

When virtio allocates the virtqueues for the vsock device using
dma_alloc_coherent(), the SWIOTLB search fails to take into account the
8KiB buffer size and returns page-unaligned allocations if 'area->index'
was left unaligned by a previous allocation from the buffer:

 # Final address in brackets is the SWIOTLB address returned to the caller
 | virtio-pci 0000:00:07.0: orig_addr 0x0 alloc_size 0x2000, iotlb_align_mask 0x800 stride 0x2: got slot 1645-1649/7168 (0x98326800)
 | virtio-pci 0000:00:07.0: orig_addr 0x0 alloc_size 0x2000, iotlb_align_mask 0x800 stride 0x2: got slot 1649-1653/7168 (0x98328800)
 | virtio-pci 0000:00:07.0: orig_addr 0x0 alloc_size 0x2000, iotlb_align_mask 0x800 stride 0x2: got slot 1653-1657/7168 (0x9832a800)

This ends in tears (typically buffer corruption and/or a hang) because
swiotlb_alloc() blindly returns the 'struct page' corresponding to the
allocation and therefore the first half of the page ends up being
allocated twice.

Fix the problem by treating the allocation alignment separately to any
additional alignment requirements from the device, using the maximum
of the two as the stride to search the buffer slots.

Fixes: bbb73a103fbb ("swiotlb: fix a braino in the alignment check fix")
Fixes: 0eee5ae10256 ("swiotlb: fix slot alignment checks")
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Cc: Petr Tesarik <petr.tesarik1@...wei-partners.com>
Cc: Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
---
 kernel/dma/swiotlb.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
index b079a9a8e087..25febb9e670c 100644
--- a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
+++ b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
@@ -982,7 +982,7 @@ static int swiotlb_search_pool_area(struct device *dev, struct io_tlb_pool *pool
 		phys_to_dma_unencrypted(dev, pool->start) & boundary_mask;
 	unsigned long max_slots = get_max_slots(boundary_mask);
 	unsigned int iotlb_align_mask =
-		dma_get_min_align_mask(dev) | alloc_align_mask;
+		dma_get_min_align_mask(dev) & ~(IO_TLB_SIZE - 1);
 	unsigned int nslots = nr_slots(alloc_size), stride;
 	unsigned int offset = swiotlb_align_offset(dev, orig_addr);
 	unsigned int index, slots_checked, count = 0, i;
@@ -998,14 +998,13 @@ static int swiotlb_search_pool_area(struct device *dev, struct io_tlb_pool *pool
 	 * allocations.
 	 */
 	if (alloc_size >= PAGE_SIZE)
-		iotlb_align_mask |= ~PAGE_MASK;
-	iotlb_align_mask &= ~(IO_TLB_SIZE - 1);
+		alloc_align_mask |= ~PAGE_MASK;
 
 	/*
 	 * For mappings with an alignment requirement don't bother looping to
 	 * unaligned slots once we found an aligned one.
 	 */
-	stride = (iotlb_align_mask >> IO_TLB_SHIFT) + 1;
+	stride = (max(alloc_align_mask, iotlb_align_mask) >> IO_TLB_SHIFT) + 1;
 
 	spin_lock_irqsave(&area->lock, flags);
 	if (unlikely(nslots > pool->area_nslabs - area->used))
@@ -1015,15 +1014,18 @@ static int swiotlb_search_pool_area(struct device *dev, struct io_tlb_pool *pool
 	index = area->index;
 
 	for (slots_checked = 0; slots_checked < pool->area_nslabs; ) {
+		phys_addr_t tlb_addr;
+
 		slot_index = slot_base + index;
+		tlb_addr = slot_addr(tbl_dma_addr, slot_index);
+
+		if (tlb_addr & alloc_align_mask)
+			goto next_slot;
 
 		if (orig_addr &&
-		    (slot_addr(tbl_dma_addr, slot_index) &
-		     iotlb_align_mask) != (orig_addr & iotlb_align_mask)) {
-			index = wrap_area_index(pool, index + 1);
-			slots_checked++;
-			continue;
-		}
+		    (tlb_addr & iotlb_align_mask) !=
+		    (orig_addr & iotlb_align_mask))
+			goto next_slot;
 
 		if (!iommu_is_span_boundary(slot_index, nslots,
 					    nr_slots(tbl_dma_addr),
@@ -1033,6 +1035,10 @@ static int swiotlb_search_pool_area(struct device *dev, struct io_tlb_pool *pool
 		}
 		index = wrap_area_index(pool, index + stride);
 		slots_checked += stride;
+		continue;
+next_slot:
+		index = wrap_area_index(pool, index + 1);
+		slots_checked++;
 	}
 
 not_found:
-- 
2.43.0.429.g432eaa2c6b-goog