From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>,
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
Semmle Security Reports <security-reports@semmle.com>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Allison Randal <allison@lohutok.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma-mapping: Lift address space checks out of debug code
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2019 14:38:43 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201910031438.A67C40B97C@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fc9fffc8-3cff-4a6f-d426-4a4cc895ebb1@arm.com>
On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 10:42:45AM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 03/10/2019 00:58, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 10:15:43PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > > Hi Kees,
> > >
> > > On 2019-10-02 9:46 pm, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > > As we've seen from USB and other areas, we need to always do runtime
> > > > checks for DMA operating on memory regions that might be remapped. This
> > > > consolidates the (existing!) checks and makes them on by default. A
> > > > warning will be triggered for any drivers still using DMA on the stack
> > > > (as has been seen in a few recent reports).
> > > >
> > > > Suggested-by: Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> > > > ---
> > > > include/linux/dma-debug.h | 8 --------
> > > > include/linux/dma-mapping.h | 8 +++++++-
> > > > kernel/dma/debug.c | 16 ----------------
> > > > 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/dma-debug.h b/include/linux/dma-debug.h
> > > > index 4208f94d93f7..2af9765d9af7 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/dma-debug.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/dma-debug.h
> > > > @@ -18,9 +18,6 @@ struct bus_type;
> > > > extern void dma_debug_add_bus(struct bus_type *bus);
> > > > -extern void debug_dma_map_single(struct device *dev, const void *addr,
> > > > - unsigned long len);
> > > > -
> > > > extern void debug_dma_map_page(struct device *dev, struct page *page,
> > > > size_t offset, size_t size,
> > > > int direction, dma_addr_t dma_addr);
> > > > @@ -75,11 +72,6 @@ static inline void dma_debug_add_bus(struct bus_type *bus)
> > > > {
> > > > }
> > > > -static inline void debug_dma_map_single(struct device *dev, const void *addr,
> > > > - unsigned long len)
> > > > -{
> > > > -}
> > > > -
> > > > static inline void debug_dma_map_page(struct device *dev, struct page *page,
> > > > size_t offset, size_t size,
> > > > int direction, dma_addr_t dma_addr)
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h b/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
> > > > index 4a1c4fca475a..2d6b8382eab1 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
> > > > @@ -583,7 +583,13 @@ static inline unsigned long dma_get_merge_boundary(struct device *dev)
> > > > static inline dma_addr_t dma_map_single_attrs(struct device *dev, void *ptr,
> > > > size_t size, enum dma_data_direction dir, unsigned long attrs)
> > > > {
> > > > - debug_dma_map_single(dev, ptr, size);
> > > > + /* DMA must never operate on stack or other remappable places. */
> > > > + WARN_ONCE(is_vmalloc_addr(ptr) || !virt_addr_valid(ptr),
> > >
> > > This stands to absolutely cripple I/O performance on arm64, because every
> > > valid call will end up going off and scanning the memblock list, which is
> > > not something we want on a fastpath in non-debug configurations. We'd need a
> > > much better solution to the "pfn_valid() vs. EFI no-map" problem before this
> > > might be viable.
> >
> > Ah! Interesting. I didn't realize this was fast-path (I don't know the
> > DMA code at all). I thought it was more of a "one time setup" before
> > actual DMA activity started.
>
> That's strictly true, it's just that many workloads can involve tens of
> thousands of "one time"s per second ;)
>
> Overhead on the dma_map_* paths has shown to have a direct impact on
> throughput in such situations, hence various optimisation effort in IOVA
> allocation for IOMMU-based DMA ops, and the recent work to remove indirect
> calls entirely for the common dma-direct/SWIOTLB cases.
>
> > Regardless, is_vmalloc_addr() is extremely light (a bounds check), and is the
> > most important part of this as far as catching stack-based DMA attempts.
> > I thought virt_addr_valid() was cheap too, but I see it's much heavier on
> > arm64.
> >
> > I just went to compare what the existing USB check does, and it happens
> > immediately before its call to dma_map_single(). Both checks are simple
> > bounds checks, so it shouldn't be an issue:
> >
> > if (is_vmalloc_addr(urb->setup_packet)) {
> > WARN_ONCE(1, "setup packet is not dma capable\n");
> > return -EAGAIN;
> > } else if (object_is_on_stack(urb->setup_packet)) {
> > WARN_ONCE(1, "setup packet is on stack\n");
> > return -EAGAIN;
> > }
> >
> > urb->setup_dma = dma_map_single(
> > hcd->self.sysdev,
> > urb->setup_packet,
> > sizeof(struct usb_ctrlrequest),
> >
> >
> > In the USB case, it'll actually refuse to do the operation. Should
> > dma_map_single() similarly fail? I could push these checks down into
> > dma_map_single(), which would be a no-change on behavior for USB and
> > gain the checks on all other callers...
>
> I think it would be reasonable to pull the is_vmalloc_addr() check inline,
> as that probably covers 90+% of badness (especially given vmapped stacks),
> and as you say should be reliably cheap everywhere. Callers are certainly
> expected to use dma_mapping_error() and handle failure, so refusing to do a
> bogus mapping operation should be OK API-wise - ultimately if a driver goes
> ahead and uses DMA_MAPPING_ERROR as an address anyway, that's not likely to
> be any *more* catastrophic than if it did the same with whatever nonsense
> virt_to_phys() of a vmalloc address had returned.
What do you think about the object_is_on_stack() check? That does a
dereference through "current" to find the stack bounds...
--
Kees Cook
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>,
Allison Randal <allison@lohutok.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
Semmle Security Reports <security-reports@semmle.com>,
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma-mapping: Lift address space checks out of debug code
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2019 14:38:43 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201910031438.A67C40B97C@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fc9fffc8-3cff-4a6f-d426-4a4cc895ebb1@arm.com>
On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 10:42:45AM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 03/10/2019 00:58, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 10:15:43PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > > Hi Kees,
> > >
> > > On 2019-10-02 9:46 pm, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > > As we've seen from USB and other areas, we need to always do runtime
> > > > checks for DMA operating on memory regions that might be remapped. This
> > > > consolidates the (existing!) checks and makes them on by default. A
> > > > warning will be triggered for any drivers still using DMA on the stack
> > > > (as has been seen in a few recent reports).
> > > >
> > > > Suggested-by: Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> > > > ---
> > > > include/linux/dma-debug.h | 8 --------
> > > > include/linux/dma-mapping.h | 8 +++++++-
> > > > kernel/dma/debug.c | 16 ----------------
> > > > 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/dma-debug.h b/include/linux/dma-debug.h
> > > > index 4208f94d93f7..2af9765d9af7 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/dma-debug.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/dma-debug.h
> > > > @@ -18,9 +18,6 @@ struct bus_type;
> > > > extern void dma_debug_add_bus(struct bus_type *bus);
> > > > -extern void debug_dma_map_single(struct device *dev, const void *addr,
> > > > - unsigned long len);
> > > > -
> > > > extern void debug_dma_map_page(struct device *dev, struct page *page,
> > > > size_t offset, size_t size,
> > > > int direction, dma_addr_t dma_addr);
> > > > @@ -75,11 +72,6 @@ static inline void dma_debug_add_bus(struct bus_type *bus)
> > > > {
> > > > }
> > > > -static inline void debug_dma_map_single(struct device *dev, const void *addr,
> > > > - unsigned long len)
> > > > -{
> > > > -}
> > > > -
> > > > static inline void debug_dma_map_page(struct device *dev, struct page *page,
> > > > size_t offset, size_t size,
> > > > int direction, dma_addr_t dma_addr)
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h b/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
> > > > index 4a1c4fca475a..2d6b8382eab1 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
> > > > @@ -583,7 +583,13 @@ static inline unsigned long dma_get_merge_boundary(struct device *dev)
> > > > static inline dma_addr_t dma_map_single_attrs(struct device *dev, void *ptr,
> > > > size_t size, enum dma_data_direction dir, unsigned long attrs)
> > > > {
> > > > - debug_dma_map_single(dev, ptr, size);
> > > > + /* DMA must never operate on stack or other remappable places. */
> > > > + WARN_ONCE(is_vmalloc_addr(ptr) || !virt_addr_valid(ptr),
> > >
> > > This stands to absolutely cripple I/O performance on arm64, because every
> > > valid call will end up going off and scanning the memblock list, which is
> > > not something we want on a fastpath in non-debug configurations. We'd need a
> > > much better solution to the "pfn_valid() vs. EFI no-map" problem before this
> > > might be viable.
> >
> > Ah! Interesting. I didn't realize this was fast-path (I don't know the
> > DMA code at all). I thought it was more of a "one time setup" before
> > actual DMA activity started.
>
> That's strictly true, it's just that many workloads can involve tens of
> thousands of "one time"s per second ;)
>
> Overhead on the dma_map_* paths has shown to have a direct impact on
> throughput in such situations, hence various optimisation effort in IOVA
> allocation for IOMMU-based DMA ops, and the recent work to remove indirect
> calls entirely for the common dma-direct/SWIOTLB cases.
>
> > Regardless, is_vmalloc_addr() is extremely light (a bounds check), and is the
> > most important part of this as far as catching stack-based DMA attempts.
> > I thought virt_addr_valid() was cheap too, but I see it's much heavier on
> > arm64.
> >
> > I just went to compare what the existing USB check does, and it happens
> > immediately before its call to dma_map_single(). Both checks are simple
> > bounds checks, so it shouldn't be an issue:
> >
> > if (is_vmalloc_addr(urb->setup_packet)) {
> > WARN_ONCE(1, "setup packet is not dma capable\n");
> > return -EAGAIN;
> > } else if (object_is_on_stack(urb->setup_packet)) {
> > WARN_ONCE(1, "setup packet is on stack\n");
> > return -EAGAIN;
> > }
> >
> > urb->setup_dma = dma_map_single(
> > hcd->self.sysdev,
> > urb->setup_packet,
> > sizeof(struct usb_ctrlrequest),
> >
> >
> > In the USB case, it'll actually refuse to do the operation. Should
> > dma_map_single() similarly fail? I could push these checks down into
> > dma_map_single(), which would be a no-change on behavior for USB and
> > gain the checks on all other callers...
>
> I think it would be reasonable to pull the is_vmalloc_addr() check inline,
> as that probably covers 90+% of badness (especially given vmapped stacks),
> and as you say should be reliably cheap everywhere. Callers are certainly
> expected to use dma_mapping_error() and handle failure, so refusing to do a
> bogus mapping operation should be OK API-wise - ultimately if a driver goes
> ahead and uses DMA_MAPPING_ERROR as an address anyway, that's not likely to
> be any *more* catastrophic than if it did the same with whatever nonsense
> virt_to_phys() of a vmalloc address had returned.
What do you think about the object_is_on_stack() check? That does a
dereference through "current" to find the stack bounds...
--
Kees Cook
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-03 21:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-02 20:46 [PATCH] dma-mapping: Lift address space checks out of debug code Kees Cook
2019-10-02 20:46 ` Kees Cook
2019-10-02 21:15 ` Robin Murphy
2019-10-02 21:15 ` Robin Murphy
2019-10-02 23:58 ` Kees Cook
2019-10-02 23:58 ` Kees Cook
2019-10-03 0:03 ` Kees Cook
2019-10-03 0:03 ` Kees Cook
2019-10-03 9:42 ` Robin Murphy
2019-10-03 9:42 ` Robin Murphy
2019-10-03 21:38 ` Kees Cook [this message]
2019-10-03 21:38 ` Kees Cook
2019-10-04 18:50 ` Robin Murphy
2019-10-04 18:50 ` Robin Murphy
2019-10-04 20:25 ` Kees Cook
2019-10-04 20:25 ` Kees Cook
2019-10-05 8:27 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-10-05 8:27 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-10-02 22:37 ` kbuild test robot
2019-10-02 22:37 ` kbuild test robot
2019-10-02 22:37 ` kbuild test robot
2019-10-03 0:05 ` kbuild test robot
2019-10-03 0:05 ` kbuild test robot
2019-10-03 0:05 ` kbuild test robot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201910031438.A67C40B97C@keescook \
--to=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=allison@lohutok.net \
--cc=brouer@redhat.com \
--cc=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=labbott@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=security-reports@semmle.com \
--cc=swboyd@chromium.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.