netdev - Re: [PATCH V3 6/6] vDPA/ifcvf: verify mandatory feature bits for vDPA

Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Message-ID: <2111b14b-4857-34c8-82c4-72d182ca50c5@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 12 Mar 2021 15:00:35 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     "Zhu, Lingshan" <lingshan.zhu@...el.com>,
        Zhu Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@...ux.intel.com>, mst@...hat.com,
        lulu@...hat.com, leonro@...dia.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 6/6] vDPA/ifcvf: verify mandatory feature bits for vDPA

On 2021/3/12 2:40 下午, Zhu, Lingshan wrote:
>
>
> On 3/12/2021 1:52 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>
>> On 2021/3/11 3:19 下午, Zhu, Lingshan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/11/2021 2:20 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2021/3/11 12:16 下午, Zhu Lingshan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/11/2021 11:20 AM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2021/3/10 5:00 下午, Zhu Lingshan wrote:
>>>>>>> vDPA requres VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM as a must, this commit
>>>>>>> examines this when set features.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhu Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@...el.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>   drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.c | 8 ++++++++
>>>>>>>   drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.h | 1 +
>>>>>>>   drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_main.c | 5 +++++
>>>>>>>   3 files changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.c 
>>>>>>> b/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.c
>>>>>>> index ea6a78791c9b..58f47fdce385 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.c
>>>>>>> @@ -224,6 +224,14 @@ u64 ifcvf_get_features(struct ifcvf_hw *hw)
>>>>>>>       return hw->hw_features;
>>>>>>>   }
>>>>>>>   +int ifcvf_verify_min_features(struct ifcvf_hw *hw)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> +    if (!(hw->hw_features & BIT_ULL(VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM)))
>>>>>>> +        return -EINVAL;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    return 0;
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>   void ifcvf_read_net_config(struct ifcvf_hw *hw, u64 offset,
>>>>>>>                  void *dst, int length)
>>>>>>>   {
>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.h 
>>>>>>> b/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.h
>>>>>>> index dbb8c10aa3b1..91c5735d4dc9 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.h
>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.h
>>>>>>> @@ -123,6 +123,7 @@ void io_write64_twopart(u64 val, u32 *lo, 
>>>>>>> u32 *hi);
>>>>>>>   void ifcvf_reset(struct ifcvf_hw *hw);
>>>>>>>   u64 ifcvf_get_features(struct ifcvf_hw *hw);
>>>>>>>   u64 ifcvf_get_hw_features(struct ifcvf_hw *hw);
>>>>>>> +int ifcvf_verify_min_features(struct ifcvf_hw *hw);
>>>>>>>   u16 ifcvf_get_vq_state(struct ifcvf_hw *hw, u16 qid);
>>>>>>>   int ifcvf_set_vq_state(struct ifcvf_hw *hw, u16 qid, u16 num);
>>>>>>>   struct ifcvf_adapter *vf_to_adapter(struct ifcvf_hw *hw);
>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_main.c 
>>>>>>> b/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_main.c
>>>>>>> index 25fb9dfe23f0..f624f202447d 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_main.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_main.c
>>>>>>> @@ -179,6 +179,11 @@ static u64 ifcvf_vdpa_get_features(struct 
>>>>>>> vdpa_device *vdpa_dev)
>>>>>>>   static int ifcvf_vdpa_set_features(struct vdpa_device 
>>>>>>> *vdpa_dev, u64 features)
>>>>>>>   {
>>>>>>>       struct ifcvf_hw *vf = vdpa_to_vf(vdpa_dev);
>>>>>>> +    int ret;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    ret = ifcvf_verify_min_features(vf);
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So this validate device features instead of driver which is the 
>>>>>> one we really want to check?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jason,
>>>>>
>>>>> Here we check device feature bits to make sure the device support 
>>>>> ACCESS_PLATFORM. 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you want to check device features, you need to do that during 
>>>> probe() and fail the probing if without the feature. But I think 
>>>> you won't ship cards without ACCESS_PLATFORM.
>>> Yes, there are no reasons ship a card without ACCESS_PLATFORM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In get_features(),
>>>>> it will return a intersection of device features bit and driver 
>>>>> supported features bits(which includes ACCESS_PLATFORM).
>>>>> Other components like QEMU should not set features bits more than 
>>>>> this intersection of bits. so we can make sure if this
>>>>> ifcvf_verify_min_features() passed, both device and driver support 
>>>>> ACCESS_PLATFORM.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you suggesting check driver feature bits in 
>>>>> ifcvf_verify_min_features() in the meantime as well?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So it really depends on your hardware. If you hardware can always 
>>>> offer ACCESS_PLATFORM, you just need to check driver features. This 
>>>> is how vdpa_sim and mlx5_vdpa work.
>>> Yes, we always support ACCESS_PLATFORM, so it is hard coded in the 
>>> macro IFCVF_SUPPORTED_FEATURES.
>>
>>
>> That's not what I read from the code:
>>
>>         features = ifcvf_get_features(vf) & IFCVF_SUPPORTED_FEATURES;
> ifcvf_get_features() reads device feature bits(which should always has 
> ACCSSS_PLATFORM) and IFCVF_SUPPORTED_FEATURES is the driver supported 
> feature bits 

For "driver" you probably mean IFCVF. So there's some misunderstanding 
before, what I meant for "driver" is virtio driver that do feature 
negotaitation with the device.

I wonder what features are supported by the device but not the IFCVF driver?

Thanks

> which hard coded ACCESS_PLATFORM, so the intersection should include 
> ACCESS_PLATFORM.
> the intersection "features" is returned in get_features(), qemu should 
> set features according to it.
>>
>>
>>> Now we check whether device support this feature bit as a double 
>>> conformation, are you suggesting we should check whether 
>>> ACCESS_PLATFORM & IFCVF_SUPPORTED_FEATURES
>>> in set_features() as well?
>>
>>
>> If we know device will always offer ACCESS_PLATFORM, there's no need 
>> to check it again. What we should check if whether driver set that, 
>> and if it doesn't we need to fail set_features(). I think there's 
>> little chance that IFCVF can work when IOMMU_PLATFORM is not negotiated.
> Agree, will check the features bit to set instead of device feature 
> bits. Thanks!
>>
>>
>>
>>> I prefer check both device and IFCVF_SUPPORTED_FEATURES both, more 
>>> reliable.
>>
>>
>> So again, if you want to check device features, set_features() is not 
>> the proper place. We need to fail the probe in this case.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks！
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +    if (ret)
>>>>>>> +        return ret;
>>>>>>>         vf->req_features = features;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Virtualization mailing list
>>>>>> Virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
>>>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

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