Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] firmware: qemu_fw_cfg.c: hold ACPI global lock during device access

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

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 09:13:00AM -0400, Gabriel L. Somlo wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 11:54:19AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 09:33:40AM -0400, Gabriel L. Somlo wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 06:57:01PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 01:30:50PM -0500, Gabriel Somlo wrote:
> > > > > Allowing for the future possibility of implementing AML-based
> > > > > (i.e., firmware-triggered) access to the QEMU fw_cfg device,
> > > > > acquire the global ACPI lock when accessing the device on behalf
> > > > > of the guest-side sysfs driver, to prevent any potential race
> > > > > conditions.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Suggested-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Gabriel Somlo <somlo@cmu.edu>
> > > > 
> > > > So this patch makes sense of course.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Given the recent discussion on QEMU mailing list,
> > > > I think there is an additional patch that we need:
> > > > filter the files exposed to userspace by "opt/" prefix.
> > > > 
> > > > This will ensure that we can change all other fw cfg files
> > > > at will without breaking guest scripts.
> > > > 
> > > > Gabriel, could you code this up? Or do you see a
> > > > pressing need to expose internal QEMU registers to
> > > > userspace?
> > > 
> > > I'd be happy to update the docs to (better) emphasisze that:
> > 
> > Well my experience shows people do not read the docs.
> > And really, good interfaces should be self-documenting.
> > 
> > >         1 the only way to guarantee any particular item shows up in
> > >           guest-side fw_cfg sysfs is manually putting it there via the
> > >           host-side command line
> > > 
> > >                 - and BTW, unless you prefixed it with "opt/..." you
> > >                   are off the reservation, and it might collide with
> > >                   qemu->firmware communications.
> > > 
> > >         2 anything one didn't place there themselves via the qemu
> > >           command line is informational only, might change or go away
> > >           at any time, and developing expectations about it based on
> > >           past observation is done at the observer's own risk.
> > > 
> > > While I don't *personally* care about items outside of "opt/", I'm a bit
> > > uncomfortable actively *hiding* them from userspace -- I could easily
> > > imagine the ability to see (read-only) fw_cfg content from userspace
> > > being a handy debugging/troubleshooting tool. It's back to separating
> > > between mechanism and policy: hiding things from userspace would IMHO
> > > fall into the policy enforcement side of things, and I'm still unclear
> > > about the failure scenario we'd be trying to prevent, and its likelihood.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > --Gabriel
> > 
> > Mostly, we can change internal qemu/firmware interfaces
> > as long as we verify that firmware that ships with QEMU
> > does not rely on them.
> > 
> > I'm fine with exposing stuff for debugging purposes
> > but I would like a cleaner separation between the two,
> > and self-documenting interfaces.
> > How about:
> > 	- place everything that is under "opt/" in e.g. "supported"
> > 	  directory, or at root
> > 	- place everything that is not under "opt/" in e.g. "unsupported"
> > 	  directory
> > 
> > Abstracting hardware is what OS is all about, this is not policy.
> 
> I'm not sure I agree with this last point:
> 
> Arguably, fw_cfg could be viewed as a glorified out-of-band USB stick
> with special files prepared by QEMU for the guest VM.
> 
> The sysfs driver is a mechanism to list/access these files, and is
> IMHO the only thing one can reasonably construe as "kernel interface".
> 
> What you're suggesting boils down to adding a translation layer between
> what QEMU names the files when preparing this magic USB stick, and what
> we tell users the names are (by adding additional folders named e.g.
> "supported" and "unsupported").
> 
> That to me looks like injecting policy ("look *here*, NOT there!") by
> doing this, instead of sticking with mechanism only ("here's what qemu
> wrote to fw_cfg, look at it if you want, or don't...").

It's a mechanism really. We have a mechanism to affect the
names of files in guest.  What I'm saying is it would be nice to
have a mechanism for QEMU to tell guest "hidden file".

Consider that ACPI has a "hidden" attribute for devices.
This is more of the same.


> While I understand your concerns, I'm not sure we should have to go
> through this level of convolution to protect people from their own
> mistakes (such as assuming certain content on the magic USB stick will
> always be there, and writing some sort of script which would break if
> said content mysteriously disappears, then reasonably complain about
> either the sysfs kernel driver or qemu itself). Presence or absence of
> some file on a magic USB stick does NOT (again, IMHO) an interface make...
> 
> I was thinking of maybe adding a module parameter, let's call it
> "show-all", off by default, and which would cause the "by-name" folder
> to only be populated by things starting with "opt" when off, and
> all fw-cfg files when enabled. But I'm not sure I like having to do it
> in the first place (particularly hardcoding the string "opt" anywhere
> in the driver :) ) so let me think about this a bit more (additional
> pro/con thoughs and opinions welcome!)...
> 
> Thanks,
> --Gabriel

the "opt/" string is part of hardware - you already hardcore
e.g. the acpi ID, correct? That's just more of the same IMHO.


> > 
> > > > > ---
> > > > > 
> > > > > Changes since v1:
> > > > > 	- no more "#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI"; instead we proceed if
> > > > > 	  acpi_acquire_global_lock() returns either OK or NOT_CONFIGURED,
> > > > > 	  and only throw a warning/error message otherwise.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 	- didn't get any *negative* feedback from the QEMU crowd, so
> > > > > 	  this is now a bona-fide "please apply this", rather than just
> > > > > 	  an RFC :)
> > > > > 
> > > > > 	- tested on ACPI-enabled x86_64, and acpi_less ARM (32 and 64 bit)
> > > > > 	  QEMU VMs (I don't have handy access to an ACPI-enabled ARM VM)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks much,
> > > > >   --Gabriel
> > > > > 
> > > > >  drivers/firmware/qemu_fw_cfg.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> > > > >  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/qemu_fw_cfg.c b/drivers/firmware/qemu_fw_cfg.c
> > > > > index 7bba76c..a44dc32 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/firmware/qemu_fw_cfg.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/qemu_fw_cfg.c
> > > > > @@ -77,12 +77,28 @@ static inline u16 fw_cfg_sel_endianness(u16 key)
> > > > >  static inline void fw_cfg_read_blob(u16 key,
> > > > >  				    void *buf, loff_t pos, size_t count)
> > > > >  {
> > > > > +	u32 glk;
> > > > > +	acpi_status status;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	/* If we have ACPI, ensure mutual exclusion against any potential
> > > > > +	 * device access by the firmware, e.g. via AML methods:
> > > > > +	 */
> > > > > +	status = acpi_acquire_global_lock(ACPI_WAIT_FOREVER, &glk);
> > > > > +	if (ACPI_FAILURE(status) && status != AE_NOT_CONFIGURED) {
> > > > > +		/* Should never get here */
> > > > > +		WARN(1, "fw_cfg_read_blob: Failed to lock ACPI!\n");
> > > > > +		memset(buf, 0, count);
> > > > > +		return;
> > > > > +	}
> > > > > +
> > > > >  	mutex_lock(&fw_cfg_dev_lock);
> > > > >  	iowrite16(fw_cfg_sel_endianness(key), fw_cfg_reg_ctrl);
> > > > >  	while (pos-- > 0)
> > > > >  		ioread8(fw_cfg_reg_data);
> > > > >  	ioread8_rep(fw_cfg_reg_data, buf, count);
> > > > >  	mutex_unlock(&fw_cfg_dev_lock);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	acpi_release_global_lock(glk);
> > > > >  }
> > > > >  
> > > > >  /* clean up fw_cfg device i/o */
> > > > > -- 
> > > > > 2.4.3