netdev - Re: [PATCH net] virtio-net: reject small vring sizes

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: <20230425083212-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 25 Apr 2023 08:33:31 -0400
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Alvaro Karsz <alvaro.karsz@...id-run.com>
Cc:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org" 
        <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] virtio-net: reject small vring sizes

On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 11:11:54AM +0000, Alvaro Karsz wrote:
> > > So, let's add some funky flags in virtio device to block out
> > > features, have core compare these before and after,
> > > detect change, reset and retry?
> > 
> > In the virtnet case, we'll decide which features to block based on the ring size.
> > 2 < ring < MAX_FRAGS + 2  -> BLOCK GRO + MRG_RXBUF
> > ring < 2  -> BLOCK GRO + MRG_RXBUF + CTRL_VQ
> > 
> > So we'll need a new virtio callback instead of flags.
> > 
> > Furthermore, other virtio drivers may decide which features to block based on parameters different than ring size (I don't have a good example at the moment).
> > So maybe we should leave it to the driver to handle (during probe), > and offer a virtio core function to re-negotiate the features?
> > 
> > In the solution I'm working on, I expose a new virtio core function that resets the device and renegotiates the received features.
> > + A new virtio_config_ops callback peek_vqs_len to peek at the VQ lengths before calling find_vqs. (The callback must be called after the features negotiation)
> > 
> > So, the flow is something like:
> > 
> > * Super early in virtnet probe, we peek at the VQ lengths and decide if we are
> >    using small vrings, if so, we reset and renegotiate the features.
> > * We continue normally and create the VQs.
> > * We check if the created rings are small.
> >    If they are and some blocked features were negotiated anyway (may occur if
> >    the re-negotiation fails, or if the transport has no implementation for
> >    peek_vqs_len), we fail probe.
> 
> Small fix: if the re-negotiation fails, we fail probe immediately.
> The only way to negotiate blocked features with a small vring is if the transport has no implementation for peek_vqs_len.

with my idea, you can go iteratively: fail one condition, core will
retry with a feature blocked, we can block more, retry again.
up to 64 times :)

> >    If the ring is small and the features are ok, we mark the virtnet device as
> >    vring_small and fixup some variables.
> > 
> > 
> > peek_vqs_len is needed because we must know the VQ length before calling init_vqs.
> > 
> > During virtnet_find_vqs we check the following:
> > vi->has_cvq
> > vi->big_packets
> > vi->mergeable_rx_bufs
> > 
> > But these will change if the ring is small..
> > 
> > (Of course, another solution will be to re-negotiate features after init_vqs, but this will make a big mess, tons of things to clean and reconfigure)
> > 
> > 
> > The 2 < ring < MAX_FRAGS + 2 part is ready, I have tested a few cases and it is working.
> > 
> > I'm considering splitting the effort into 2 series.
> > A 2 < ring < MAX_FRAGS + 2  series, and a follow up series with the ring < 2 case.
> > 
> > I'm also thinking about sending the first series as an RFC soon, so it will be more broadly tested.
> > 
> > What do you think?
> >