From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
To: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
Xie Yongji <xieyongji@bytedance.com>,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>,
markver@us.ibm.com,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] virtio: write back features before verify
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 11:28:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87r1d64dl4.fsf@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210930012049.3780865-1-pasic@linux.ibm.com>
On Thu, Sep 30 2021, Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> This patch fixes a regression introduced by commit 82e89ea077b9
> ("virtio-blk: Add validation for block size in config space") and
> enables similar checks in verify() on big endian platforms.
>
> The problem with checking multi-byte config fields in the verify
> callback, on big endian platforms, and with a possibly transitional
> device is the following. The verify() callback is called between
> config->get_features() and virtio_finalize_features(). That we have a
> device that offered F_VERSION_1 then we have the following options
> either the device is transitional, and then it has to present the legacy
> interface, i.e. a big endian config space until F_VERSION_1 is
> negotiated, or we have a non-transitional device, which makes
> F_VERSION_1 mandatory, and only implements the non-legacy interface and
> thus presents a little endian config space. Because at this point we
> can't know if the device is transitional or non-transitional, we can't
> know do we need to byte swap or not.
>
> The virtio spec explicitly states that the driver MAY read config
> between reading and writing the features so saying that first accessing
> the config before feature negotiation is done is not an option. The
> specification ain't clear about setting the features multiple times
> before FEATURES_OK, so I guess that should be fine.
>
> I don't consider this patch super clean, but frankly I don't think we
> have a ton of options. Another option that may or man not be cleaner,
> but is also IMHO much uglier is to figure out whether the device is
> transitional by rejecting _F_VERSION_1, then resetting it and proceeding
> according tho what we have figured out, hoping that the characteristics
> of the device didn't change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
> Fixes: 82e89ea077b9 ("virtio-blk: Add validation for block size in config space")
> Reported-by: markver@us.ibm.com
> ---
> drivers/virtio/virtio.c | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio.c
> index 0a5b54034d4b..9dc3cfa17b1c 100644
> --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio.c
> +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio.c
> @@ -249,6 +249,10 @@ static int virtio_dev_probe(struct device *_d)
> if (device_features & (1ULL << i))
> __virtio_set_bit(dev, i);
>
> + /* Write back features before validate to know endianness */
> + if (device_features & (1ULL << VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1))
> + dev->config->finalize_features(dev);
This really looks like a mess :(
We end up calling ->finalize_features twice: once before ->validate, and
once after, that time with the complete song and dance. The first time,
we operate on one feature set; after validation, we operate on another,
and there might be interdependencies between the two (like a that a bit
is cleared because of another bit, which would not happen if validate
had a chance to clear that bit before).
I'm not sure whether that is even a problem in the spec: while the
driver may read the config before finally accepting features, it does
not really make sense to do so before a feature bit as basic as
VERSION_1 which determines the endianness has been negotiated. For
VERSION_1, we can probably go ahead and just assume that we will accept
it if offered, but what about other (future) bits?
> +
> if (drv->validate) {
> err = drv->validate(dev);
> if (err)
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
To: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
Xie Yongji <xieyongji@bytedance.com>,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
markver@us.ibm.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] virtio: write back features before verify
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 11:28:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87r1d64dl4.fsf@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210930012049.3780865-1-pasic@linux.ibm.com>
On Thu, Sep 30 2021, Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> This patch fixes a regression introduced by commit 82e89ea077b9
> ("virtio-blk: Add validation for block size in config space") and
> enables similar checks in verify() on big endian platforms.
>
> The problem with checking multi-byte config fields in the verify
> callback, on big endian platforms, and with a possibly transitional
> device is the following. The verify() callback is called between
> config->get_features() and virtio_finalize_features(). That we have a
> device that offered F_VERSION_1 then we have the following options
> either the device is transitional, and then it has to present the legacy
> interface, i.e. a big endian config space until F_VERSION_1 is
> negotiated, or we have a non-transitional device, which makes
> F_VERSION_1 mandatory, and only implements the non-legacy interface and
> thus presents a little endian config space. Because at this point we
> can't know if the device is transitional or non-transitional, we can't
> know do we need to byte swap or not.
>
> The virtio spec explicitly states that the driver MAY read config
> between reading and writing the features so saying that first accessing
> the config before feature negotiation is done is not an option. The
> specification ain't clear about setting the features multiple times
> before FEATURES_OK, so I guess that should be fine.
>
> I don't consider this patch super clean, but frankly I don't think we
> have a ton of options. Another option that may or man not be cleaner,
> but is also IMHO much uglier is to figure out whether the device is
> transitional by rejecting _F_VERSION_1, then resetting it and proceeding
> according tho what we have figured out, hoping that the characteristics
> of the device didn't change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
> Fixes: 82e89ea077b9 ("virtio-blk: Add validation for block size in config space")
> Reported-by: markver@us.ibm.com
> ---
> drivers/virtio/virtio.c | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio.c
> index 0a5b54034d4b..9dc3cfa17b1c 100644
> --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio.c
> +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio.c
> @@ -249,6 +249,10 @@ static int virtio_dev_probe(struct device *_d)
> if (device_features & (1ULL << i))
> __virtio_set_bit(dev, i);
>
> + /* Write back features before validate to know endianness */
> + if (device_features & (1ULL << VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1))
> + dev->config->finalize_features(dev);
This really looks like a mess :(
We end up calling ->finalize_features twice: once before ->validate, and
once after, that time with the complete song and dance. The first time,
we operate on one feature set; after validation, we operate on another,
and there might be interdependencies between the two (like a that a bit
is cleared because of another bit, which would not happen if validate
had a chance to clear that bit before).
I'm not sure whether that is even a problem in the spec: while the
driver may read the config before finally accepting features, it does
not really make sense to do so before a feature bit as basic as
VERSION_1 which determines the endianness has been negotiated. For
VERSION_1, we can probably go ahead and just assume that we will accept
it if offered, but what about other (future) bits?
> +
> if (drv->validate) {
> err = drv->validate(dev);
> if (err)
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-30 9:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 131+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-30 1:20 [RFC PATCH 1/1] virtio: write back features before verify Halil Pasic
2021-09-30 1:20 ` Halil Pasic
2021-09-30 8:04 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-30 8:04 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-30 9:28 ` Cornelia Huck [this message]
2021-09-30 9:28 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-09-30 11:03 ` Halil Pasic
2021-09-30 11:03 ` Halil Pasic
2021-09-30 11:31 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-09-30 11:31 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-01 14:22 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-01 14:22 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-01 15:18 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-01 15:18 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-02 18:13 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-02 18:13 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 2:23 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-04 2:23 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-04 9:07 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 9:07 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 9:07 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 10:06 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-05 10:06 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-05 10:06 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-05 10:43 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-05 10:43 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-05 10:43 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-05 11:11 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 11:11 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 11:11 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 11:13 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-05 11:13 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-05 11:13 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-05 11:20 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 11:20 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 11:20 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 11:59 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-05 11:59 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-05 11:59 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-05 15:25 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-05 15:25 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-05 15:25 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 7:01 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 7:01 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 9:25 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-04 9:25 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-04 9:51 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 9:51 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-02 12:09 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-02 12:09 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-09-30 11:12 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-09-30 11:12 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-09-30 11:36 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-09-30 11:36 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-02 18:20 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-02 18:20 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-03 5:00 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-03 5:00 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-03 6:42 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-03 6:42 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-03 7:26 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-03 7:26 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 12:01 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 12:01 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 12:01 ` [virtio-dev] " Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 12:54 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 12:54 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 14:27 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 14:27 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 14:27 ` [virtio-dev] " Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 15:05 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 15:05 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 15:05 ` [virtio-dev] " Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 15:45 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 15:45 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 15:45 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 20:01 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 20:01 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 7:38 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-05 7:38 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-05 7:38 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-05 11:17 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-05 11:17 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-05 11:22 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 11:22 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 15:20 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-05 15:20 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-05 15:20 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-05 15:20 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-01 7:21 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-01 7:21 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-02 10:21 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-02 10:21 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 12:19 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 12:19 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 12:19 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 13:11 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 13:11 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 13:11 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 14:33 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 14:33 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 14:33 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 15:07 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 15:07 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 15:07 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 15:50 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 15:50 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 15:50 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 19:17 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 19:17 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 19:17 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-06 10:13 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-06 10:13 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-06 10:13 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-06 12:15 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-06 12:15 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-06 12:15 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 7:25 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-05 7:25 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-05 7:25 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-05 7:53 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 7:53 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 7:53 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 10:46 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-05 10:46 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-05 10:46 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-05 11:11 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 11:11 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 11:11 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-01 14:34 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-10-01 14:34 ` Christian Borntraeger
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=87r1d64dl4.fsf@redhat.com \
--to=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=jasowang@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=markver@us.ibm.com \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=pasic@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=xieyongji@bytedance.com \
/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.