linux-kernel - Re: [v2 PATCH] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Fix L1 stream table index calculation for 32-bit sid size

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f28cab76-8030-477a-84b1-461dc02451ff@os.amperecomputing.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2024 13:05:08 -0700
From: Yang Shi <yang@...amperecomputing.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
Cc: james.morse@....com, will@...nel.org, robin.murphy@....com,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Fix L1 stream table index
 calculation for 32-bit sid size



On 10/2/24 12:40 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 12:22:48PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 12:04:32PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 10:55:14AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
>>>>> +static inline unsigned int arm_smmu_strtab_max_sid(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +       return (1ULL << smmu->sid_bits);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>> Hmm, why ULL gets truncated to unsigned int here?
>>> No particular reason, but it should be better to not truncate here. Will
>>> fix it.
>> Yea, and looks like we are going to do with:
>> static inline u64 arm_smmu_strtab_num_sids(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu);
>>
>> Then let's be careful at those return-value holders too:
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> static int arm_smmu_init_strtab_linear(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>> {
>> 	u32 size;
>> 	struct arm_smmu_strtab_cfg *cfg = &smmu->strtab_cfg;
>>
>> 	size = (1 << smmu->sid_bits) * sizeof(struct arm_smmu_ste);
>>          ^^^^
>>          overflow?
>> [...]
>> 	cfg->linear.num_ents = 1 << smmu->sid_bits;
>>                      ^^^^^^^^
>>                      This is u32
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
> It would make some sense to have something like:
>
>   u64 size = arm_smmu_strtab_max_sid()
>
>   /* Would require too much memory */
>   if (size > SZ_512M)
>      return -EINVAL;

Why not just check smmu->sid_bits?

For example,

if (smmu->sid_bits > 28)
     return -EINVAL;

The check can happen before the shift.

>
> Just to reject bad configuration rather than truncate the allocation
> and overflow STE array memory or something. Having drivers be robust
> to this kind of stuff is a confidential compute topic :\
>
> Jason