Re: [PATCH v2] vfio/pci: Verify each MSI vector to avoid invalid MSI vectors

Alex Williamson
2022-11-23T19:59:08Z

On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 12:08:05 +0000
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 01:42:36 +0000,
> chenxiang <chenxiang66@hisilicon.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Xiang Chen <chenxiang66@hisilicon.com>
> >
> > Currently the number of MSI vectors comes from register PCI_MSI_FLAGS
> > which should be power-of-2 in qemu, in some scenaries it is not the same as
> > the number that driver requires in guest, for example, a PCI driver wants
> > to allocate 6 MSI vecotrs in guest, but as the limitation, it will allocate
> > 8 MSI vectors. So it requires 8 MSI vectors in qemu while the driver in
> > guest only wants to allocate 6 MSI vectors.
> >
> > When GICv4.1 is enabled, it iterates over all possible MSIs and enable the
> > forwarding while the guest has only created some of mappings in the virtual
> > ITS, so some calls fail. The exception print is as following:
> > vfio-pci 0000:3a:00.1: irq bypass producer (token 000000008f08224d) registration
> > fails:66311
> >
> > To avoid the issue, verify each MSI vector, skip some operations such as
> > request_irq() and irq_bypass_register_producer() for those invalid MSI vectors.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Xiang Chen <chenxiang66@hisilicon.com>
> > ---
> > I reported the issue at the link:
> > https://lkml.kernel.org/lkml/87cze9lcut.wl-maz@kernel.org/T/
> >
> > Change Log:
> > v1 -> v2:
> > Verify each MSI vector in kernel instead of adding systemcall according to
> > Mar's suggestion
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-irqfd.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> > arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-its.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic.h | 1 +
> > drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_intrs.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > include/linux/kvm_host.h | 2 ++
> > 5 files changed, 85 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-irqfd.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-irqfd.c
> > index 475059b..71f6af57 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-irqfd.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-irqfd.c
> > @@ -98,6 +98,19 @@ int kvm_set_msi(struct kvm_kernel_irq_routing_entry *e,
> > return vgic_its_inject_msi(kvm, &msi);
> > }
> >
> > +int kvm_verify_msi(struct kvm *kvm,
> > + struct kvm_kernel_irq_routing_entry *irq_entry)
> > +{
> > + struct kvm_msi msi;
> > +
> > + if (!vgic_has_its(kvm))
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > +
> > + kvm_populate_msi(irq_entry, &msi);
> > +
> > + return vgic_its_verify_msi(kvm, &msi);
> > +}
> > +
> > /**
> > * kvm_arch_set_irq_inatomic: fast-path for irqfd injection
> > */
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-its.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-its.c
> > index 94a666d..8312a4a 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-its.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-its.c
> > @@ -767,6 +767,42 @@ int vgic_its_inject_cached_translation(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_msi *msi)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +int vgic_its_verify_msi(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_msi *msi)
> > +{
> > + struct vgic_its *its;
> > + struct its_ite *ite;
> > + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> > + int ret = 0;
> > +
> > + if (!irqchip_in_kernel(kvm) || (msi->flags & ~KVM_MSI_VALID_DEVID))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + if (!vgic_has_its(kvm))
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > +
> > + its = vgic_msi_to_its(kvm, msi);
> > + if (IS_ERR(its))
> > + return PTR_ERR(its);
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&its->its_lock);
> > + if (!its->enabled) {
> > + ret = -EBUSY;
> > + goto unlock;
> > + }
> > + ite = find_ite(its, msi->devid, msi->data);
> > + if (!ite || !its_is_collection_mapped(ite->collection)) {
> > + ret = E_ITS_INT_UNMAPPED_INTERRUPT;
> > + goto unlock;
> > + }
> > +
> > + vcpu = kvm_get_vcpu(kvm, ite->collection->target_addr);
> > + if (!vcpu)
> > + ret = E_ITS_INT_UNMAPPED_INTERRUPT;
>
> I'm sorry, but what does this mean to the caller? This should never
> leak outside of the ITS code.
>
> > +unlock:
> > + mutex_unlock(&its->its_lock);
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > /*
> > * Queries the KVM IO bus framework to get the ITS pointer from the given
> > * doorbell address.
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic.h b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic.h
> > index 0c8da72..d452150 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic.h
> > @@ -240,6 +240,7 @@ int kvm_vgic_register_its_device(void);
> > void vgic_enable_lpis(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> > void vgic_flush_pending_lpis(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> > int vgic_its_inject_msi(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_msi *msi);
> > +int vgic_its_verify_msi(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_msi *msi);
> > int vgic_v3_has_attr_regs(struct kvm_device *dev, struct kvm_device_attr *attr);
> > int vgic_v3_dist_uaccess(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool is_write,
> > int offset, u32 *val);
> > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_intrs.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_intrs.c
> > index 40c3d7c..3027805 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_intrs.c
> > +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_intrs.c
> > @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
> > #include <linux/vfio.h>
> > #include <linux/wait.h>
> > #include <linux/slab.h>
> > +#include <linux/kvm_irqfd.h>
> >
> > #include "vfio_pci_priv.h"
> >
> > @@ -315,6 +316,28 @@ static int vfio_msi_enable(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev, int nvec, bool msi
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +static int vfio_pci_verify_msi_entry(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev,
> > + struct eventfd_ctx *trigger)
> > +{
> > + struct kvm *kvm = vdev->vdev.kvm;
> > + struct kvm_kernel_irqfd *tmp;
> > + struct kvm_kernel_irq_routing_entry irq_entry;
> > + int ret = -ENODEV;
> > +
> > + spin_lock_irq(&kvm->irqfds.lock);
> > + list_for_each_entry(tmp, &kvm->irqfds.items, list) {
> > + if (trigger == tmp->eventfd) {
> > + ret = 0;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + spin_unlock_irq(&kvm->irqfds.lock);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > + irq_entry = tmp->irq_entry;
> > + return kvm_verify_msi(kvm, &irq_entry);
>
> How does this work on !arm64? Why do we need an on-stack version of
> tmp->irq_entry?

Not only on !arm64, but in any scenario that doesn't involve KVM.
There cannot be a hard dependency between vfio and kvm. Thanks,

Alex

PS - What driver/device actually cares about more than 1 MSI vector and
doesn't implement MSI-X?

>
> > +}
> > +
> > static int vfio_msi_set_vector_signal(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev,
> > int vector, int fd, bool msix)
> > {
> > @@ -355,6 +378,16 @@ static int vfio_msi_set_vector_signal(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev,
> > return PTR_ERR(trigger);
> > }
> >
> > + if (!msix) {
> > + ret = vfio_pci_verify_msi_entry(vdev, trigger);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + kfree(vdev->ctx[vector].name);
> > + eventfd_ctx_put(trigger);
> > + if (ret > 0)
> > + ret = 0;
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > + }
>
> Honestly, the whole things seems really complicated to avoid something
> that is only a harmless warning . How about just toning down the
> message instead?
>
> M.
>