Re: [PATCH 5/5] memory: Skip bad range assertion if notifier is DEVIOTLB_UNMAP type

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 01:48:57PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 11:05:01AM +0200, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 6:34 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2020/9/4 上午12:14, Eugenio Pérez wrote:
> > > > Device IOTLB invalidations can unmap arbitrary ranges, eiter outside of
> > > > the memory region or even [0, ~0ULL] for all the space. The assertion
> > > > could be hit by a guest, and rhel7 guest effectively hit it.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Eugenio Pérez <eperezma@redhat.com>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >   softmmu/memory.c | 13 +++++++++++--
> > > >   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/softmmu/memory.c b/softmmu/memory.c
> > > > index 8694fc7cf7..e723fcbaa1 100644
> > > > --- a/softmmu/memory.c
> > > > +++ b/softmmu/memory.c
> > > > @@ -1895,6 +1895,7 @@ void memory_region_notify_iommu_one(IOMMUNotifier *notifier,
> > > >   {
> > > >       IOMMUTLBEntry *entry = &event->entry;
> > > >       hwaddr entry_end = entry->iova + entry->addr_mask;
> > > > +    IOMMUTLBEntry tmp = *entry;
> > > >
> > > >       if (event->type == IOMMU_NOTIFIER_UNMAP) {
> > > >           assert(entry->perm == IOMMU_NONE);
> > > > @@ -1908,10 +1909,18 @@ void memory_region_notify_iommu_one(IOMMUNotifier *notifier,
> > > >           return;
> > > >       }
> > > >
> > > > -    assert(entry->iova >= notifier->start && entry_end <= notifier->end);
> > > > +    if (notifier->notifier_flags & IOMMU_NOTIFIER_DEVIOTLB_UNMAP) {
> > > > +        /* Crop (iova, addr_mask) to range */
> > > > +        tmp.iova = MAX(tmp.iova, notifier->start);
> > > > +        tmp.addr_mask = MIN(entry_end, notifier->end) - tmp.iova;
> > > > +        /* Confirm no underflow */
> > > > +        assert(MIN(entry_end, notifier->end) >= tmp.iova);
> > >
> > >
> > > It's still not clear to me why we need such assert. Consider
> > > notifier->end is the possible IOVA range but not possible device IOTLB
> > > invalidation range (e.g it allows [0, ULLONG_MAX]).
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > 
> > As far as I understood the device should admit that out of bounds
> > notifications in that case,
> > and the assert just makes sure that there was no underflow in
> > tmp.addr_mask, i.e., that something
> > very wrong that should never happen in production happened.
> > 
> > Peter, would you mind to confirm/correct it?
> 
> I think Jason is right - since we have checked at the entry that the two
> regions cross over each other:
> 
>     /*
>      * Skip the notification if the notification does not overlap
>      * with registered range.
>      */
>     if (notifier->start > entry_end || notifier->end < entry->iova) {
>         return;
>     }
> 
> Then I don't see how this assertion can fail any more.
> 
> But imho not a big problem either, and it shouldn't hurt to even keep the
> assertion of above isn't that straightforward.
> 
> > 
> > Is there anything else needed to pull this patch?
> 
> I didn't post a pull for this only because I shouldn't :) - the plan was that
> all vt-d patches will still go via Michael's tree, iiuc.  Though at least to me
> I think this series is acceptable for merging.

Sure, that's ok.

Eugenio, you sent patch 0 as a response to another series, which
made me miss the series. Pls don't do that in the future.

Looks like Jason reviewed the series - Jason, is that right? -
so I'd like his ack if possible.


> Though it would always be good too if Jason would still like to review it.
> 
> Jason, what's your opinion?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -- 
> Peter Xu