Re: [v8][PATCH 02/17] introduce XEN_DOMCTL_set_rdm

["Chen, Tiejun" <tiejun.chen@intel.com>]

On 2014/12/8 16:43, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 08.12.14 at 07:06, <tiejun.chen@intel.com> wrote:
>> On 2014/12/4 23:33, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 01.12.14 at 10:24, <tiejun.chen@intel.com> wrote:
>> Looks this could be fine,
>>
>> d->arch.hvm_domain.pci_force = xdsr->flags & PCI_DEV_RDM_CHECK;
>
> Which is correct only because PCI_DEV_RDM_CHECK happens to be
> 1. Such hidden dependencies shouldn't be introduced though, in
> particular to avoid others then cloning the code for a flag that's not
> 1. The canonical form (found in many places throughout the treei

Right.

>
>      d->arch.hvm_domain.pci_force = !!(xdsr->flags & PCI_DEV_RDM_CHECK);

Fixed.

>
>>>> +        d->arch.hvm_domain.pcidevs = NULL;
>>>> +
>>>> +        if ( xdsr->num_pcidevs )
>>>> +        {
>>>> +            pcidevs = xmalloc_array(xen_guest_pcidev_info_t,
>>>> +                                    xdsr->num_pcidevs);
>>>
>>> New domctl-s must not represent security risks: xdsr->num_pcidevs
>>> can be (almost) arbitrarily large - do you really want to allow such
>>> huge allocations? A reasonable upper bound could for example be
>>
>> Sorry, as you know this num_pcidevs is from tools, and actually it share
>> that result from that existing hypercall, assign_device, while parsing
>> 'pci=[]', so I couldn't understand why this can be (almost" arbitrarily
>> large.
>
> You imply well behaved tools, which you shouldn't when viewing
> things from a security perspective.
>
>>> the total number of PCI devices the hypervisor knows about.
>>
>> I take a quick look at this but looks we have no this exact value that
>> we can get directly.
>
> You need some upper bound. Whether you introduce a properly

In theory, we may have at most the number, domain(16bit) x bus(8bit) x 
device(5bit) x function(3bit), 2^16 x 2^8 x 2^5 x 2^3 = 0x1000000, so 
could we define a macro like this,

#define PCI_DEVICES_NUM_UP 0x1000000

> maintained count or a suitable estimate thereof doesn't matter.
>
>>>> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/domain.h
>>>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/domain.h
>>>> @@ -90,6 +90,10 @@ struct hvm_domain {
>>>>        /* Cached CF8 for guest PCI config cycles */

[snip]

>
> I really didn't necessarily mean individual comments - one for the whole
> group would suffice.
>
> Also I don't think pci_force is really the right name - all_pcidevs or
> some such would seem more suitable following the entire series.
> And finally, I'm generally advocating for avoiding redundant data
> items - I'm sure this "all" notion can be encoded reasonable with
> just the other two field (and a suitable checking macro).

Yeah.

>

Are you saying this way?

#define PCI_DEVS_NUM_UP 0x1000000
#define ALL_PCI_DEVS    (0x1 << 31)

#define is_all_pcidevs(d)  ((d)->arch.hvm_domain.num_pcidevs & ALL_PCI_DEVS)
#define is_valid_pcidevs_num(d)  \
     ((d)->arch.hvm_domain.num_pcidevs <= PCI_DEVS_NUM_UP)

     /*
      * num_pcidevs:
      * bit31 indicates if all devices need to be checked/reserved
      * Reserved Device Memory.
      * bit30 ~ bit25 are reserved now.
      * bit24 ~ bit0 represent actually how many pci devices we
      * need to check/reserve Reserved Device Memory. They are
      * valid just when bit31 is zero.
      *
      * pcidevs represent these pci device instances associated to
      * bit42 ~ bit0.
      */
     uint32_t                num_pcidevs;
     struct xen_guest_pcidev_info      *pcidevs;

Thanks
Tiejun