linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 2/3] rust: add dma coherent allocator abstraction.

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: <Z8qzP3CR8Quhp87Z@pollux>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 09:50:07 +0100
From: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: Abdiel Janulgue <abdiel.janulgue@...il.com>, aliceryhl@...gle.com,
	robin.murphy@....com, daniel.almeida@...labora.com,
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
	Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
	Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
	Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
	Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>,
	Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
	Valentin Obst <kernel@...entinobst.de>,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>, airlied@...hat.com,
	"open list:DMA MAPPING HELPERS" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 2/3] rust: add dma coherent allocator abstraction.

On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 12:09:07PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 04:21:51PM +0100, Simona Vetter wrote:
> > > >  > a device with no driver bound should not be passed to the DMA API,
> > > >  > much less a dead device that's already been removed from its parent
> > > >  > bus.
> > > 
> > > Thanks for bringing this up!
> > > 
> > > I assume that's because of potential iommu mappings, the memory itself should
> > > not be critical.
> 
> There is a lot of state tied to the struct device lifecycle that the
> DMA API and iommu implicitly manages. It is not just iommu mappings.
> 
> It is incorrect to view the struct device as a simple refcount object
> where holding the refcount means it is alive and safe to use. There
> are three broad substates (No Driver, Driver Attached, Zombie) that
> the struct device can be in that are relevant.
> 
> Technically it is unsafe and oopsable to call the allocation API as
> well on a device that has no driver. This issue is also ignored in
> these bindings and cannot be solved with revoke.

This is correct, and I am well aware of it. I brought this up once when working
on the initial device / driver, devres and I/O abstractions.

It's on my list to make the creation of the Devres container fallible in this
aspect, which would prevent this issue.

For now it's probably not too critical; we never hand out device references
before probe(). The only source of error is when a driver tries to create new
device resources after the device has been unbound.

> IOW I do not belive you can create bindings here that are truely safe
> without also teaching rust to understand the concept of a scope
> guaranteed to be within a probed driver's lifetime.
> 
> > > > Also note that any HW configured to do DMA must be halted before the
> > > > free is allowed otherwise it is a UAF bug. It is worth mentioning that
> > > > in the documentation.
> > > 
> > > Agreed, makes sense to document. For embedding the CoherentAllocation into
> > > Devres this shouldn't be an issue, since a driver must stop operating the device
> > > in remove() by definition.
> >
> > I think for basic driver allocations that you just need to run the device
> > stuffing it all into devres is ok. 
> 
> What exactly will this revokable critical region protect?
> 
> The actual critical region extends into the HW itself, it is not
> simple to model this with a pure SW construct of bracketing some
> allocation. You need to bracket the *entire lifecycle* of the
> dma_addr_t that has been returned and passed into HW, until the
> dma_addr_t is removed from HW.

Devres callbacks run after remove(). It's the drivers job to stop operating the
device latest in remove(). Which means that the design is correct.

Now, you ask for a step further, i.e. make it that we can enforce that a driver
actually stopped the device in remove().

But that's just impossible, because obviously no one else than the driver knows
the semantics of the devicei; it's the whole purpose of the driver. So, this is
one of the exceptions where just have to trust the driver doing the correct
thing.

Having that said, it doesn't need to be an "all or nothing", let's catch the
ones we can actually catch.