netdev - Re: [PATCH mlx5-next] IB/mlx5: Prevent allocating UMEM and UCTX as some general object

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, 20 Dec 2018 17:02:12 +0000
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
CC:     Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...lanox.com>,
        RDMA mailing list <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        Achiad Shochat <achiad@...lanox.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        linux-netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mlx5-next] IB/mlx5: Prevent allocating UMEM and UCTX as
 some general object

On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 08:21:33AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 07:14:12PM +0000, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 04:28:15PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > From: Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...lanox.com>
> > >
> > > The driver needs to prevent a user space application to create a
> > > UMEM and UCTX via the general object command.
> > >
> > > The UMEM must go through the kernel UMEM_REG method to prevent the user
> > > from setting physical addresses by himself.  The UCTX is some internal
> > > kernel object and shouldn't be exposed.
> > >
> > > As of not being any more part of the general object the caps bits were
> > > moved to be some log_xxx indication in the general HCA caps, 0 means not
> > > supported.
> > >
> > > The firmware code was adapted as well to match the above.
> >
> > This commit message is a bit wonky.. how about
> >
> > IB/mlx5: Use the correct commands for UMEM and UCTX allocation
> >
> > During testing the command format was changed to close a security
> > hole. Revise the driver to use the command format that will actually
> > be supported in GA firmware.
> >
> > Both the UMEM and UCTX are intended only for use by the kernel and
> > cannot be executed using a general command.
> >
> > Since the UMEM and CTX are not part of the general object the caps
> > bits were moved to be some log_xxx location in the general HCA caps.
> 
> I'm fine with this description too.
> 
> >
> > > Signed-off-by: Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...lanox.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Achiad Shochat <achiad@...lanox.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>
> >
> > Also add a fixes line please, any kernel with the devx needs this
> > patch to work with GA firmware.
> 
> Fixes: a8b92ca1b0e5 ("IB/mlx5: Introduce DEVX")
> 
> >
> > >  drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/devx.c | 34 ++++++++---------
> > >  drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c |  3 +-
> > >  include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h     | 62 +++++++++++++++++++++----------
> > >  3 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
> >
> > Otherwise the patch looks fine, please apply to the shared branch..
> 
> Jason,
> 
> I have procedural question. This patch is based on rdma-next and there
> is diversion in both devx.c and main.c in those areas, enough do not
> apply cleanly. Will it be easier if you take this patch to rdma-next,
> instead me applying different patch to mlx5-next and you hitting merge
> conflict later on while trying to merge it into rdma-next?

Sure, but it has the unsplit _ifc update... 

I think we are at the end of the cycle so this probably won't make a
conflict - lets just go in RDMA then.

Jason