Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] uio_pci_generic: add MSI/MSI-X support

[Gleb Natapov <gleb@scylladb.com>]

On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 04:20:04PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 03:27:37PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 03:06:07PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 12:44:09PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On 10/08/2015 12:16 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > >On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 11:46:30AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>On 10/08/2015 10:32 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > >>>On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 08:33:45AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > > > >>>>It is good practice to defend against root oopsing the kernel, but in some
> > > > >>>>cases it cannot be achieved.
> > > > >>>Absolutely. That's one of the issues with these patches. They don't even
> > > > >>>try where it's absolutely possible.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>Are you referring to blocking the maps of the msix BAR areas?
> > > > >For example. There are more. I listed some of the issues on the mailing
> > > > >list, and I might have missed some.  VFIO has code to address all this,
> > > > >people should share code to avoid duplication, or at least read it
> > > > >to understand the issues.
> > > > 
> > > > All but one of those are unrelated to the patch that adds msix support.
> > > 
> > > They are related because msix support enables bus mastering.  Without it
> > > device is passive and can't harm anyone. With it, suddently you need to
> > > be very careful with the device to avoid corrupting kernel memory.
> > > 
> > Most (if not all) uio_pci_generic users enable pci bus mastering. The
> > fact that they do that without even tainting the kernel like the patch
> > does make current situation much worse that with the patch.
> 
> It isn't worse. It's a sane interface. Whoever enables bus mastering
> must be careful.  If userspace enables bus mastering then userspace
> needs to be very careful with the device to avoid corrupting kernel
> memory.  If kernel does it, it's kernel's responsibility.
> 
Although this definition of sanity sounds strange to me, but lets
flow with it for the sake of this email: would it be OK if proposed
interface refused to work if bus mastering is not already enabled by
userspace?
 
--
			Gleb.