netdev - Re: [RFC 1/2] vhost: IFC VF hardware operation layer

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]

Date:   Wed, 23 Oct 2019 19:11:16 +0200
From:   Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc:     "Zhu, Lingshan" <lingshan.zhu@...el.com>, mst@...hat.com,
        alex.williamson@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, dan.daly@...el.com,
        cunming.liang@...el.com, tiwei.bie@...el.com, jason.zeng@...el.com,
        zhiyuan.lv@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] vhost: IFC VF hardware operation layer

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 06:36:13PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> On 2019/10/23 下午6:13, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 09:32:36AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > On 2019/10/22 上午12:31, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 05:55:33PM +0800, Zhu, Lingshan wrote:
> > > > > On 10/16/2019 5:53 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Zhu,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > thanks for your patch.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 09:10:40AM +0800, Zhu Lingshan wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > > 
> > > > > > > +static void ifcvf_read_dev_config(struct ifcvf_hw *hw, u64 offset,
> > > > > > > +		       void *dst, int length)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > +	int i;
> > > > > > > +	u8 *p;
> > > > > > > +	u8 old_gen, new_gen;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +	do {
> > > > > > > +		old_gen = ioread8(&hw->common_cfg->config_generation);
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +		p = dst;
> > > > > > > +		for (i = 0; i < length; i++)
> > > > > > > +			*p++ = ioread8((u8 *)hw->dev_cfg + offset + i);
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +		new_gen = ioread8(&hw->common_cfg->config_generation);
> > > > > > > +	} while (old_gen != new_gen);
> > > > > > Would it be wise to limit the number of iterations of the loop above?
> > > > > Thanks but I don't quite get it. This is used to make sure the function
> > > > > would get the latest config.
> > > > I am worried about the possibility that it will loop forever.
> > > > Could that happen?
> > > > 
> > > > ...
> > > My understanding is that the function here is similar to virtio config
> > > generation [1]. So this can only happen for a buggy hardware.
> > Ok, so this circles back to my original question.
> > Should we put a bound on the number of times the loop runs
> > or should we accept that the kernel locks up if the HW is buggy?
> > 
> 
> I'm not sure, and similar logic has been used by virtio-pci drivers for
> years. Consider this logic is pretty simple and it should not be the only
> place that virito hardware can lock kernel, we can keep it as is.

Ok, I accept that there isn't much use fixing this if its idomatic and
there are other places virtio hardware can lock up the kernel.

> Actually, there's no need for hardware to implement generation logic, it
> could be emulated by software or even ignored. In new version of
> virtio-mdev, get_generation() is optional, when it was not implemented, 0 is
> simply returned by virtio-mdev transport.
> 
> Thanks
>