From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6D01C4361B for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 14:33:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50F5523AAA for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 14:33:49 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 50F5523AAA Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:37384 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kqGpI-0001XI-BB for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 09:33:48 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41014) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kqGns-0000q9-VL; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 09:32:20 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:35202) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kqGnq-0007EZ-Sc; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 09:32:20 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0BIETKP3169565; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 09:32:16 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=subject : to : cc : references : from : message-id : date : mime-version : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=gj8mMmzk6QjmUkxKHg2GrPIMyKpP7i0f2AFO46x4mCw=; b=iORNuiraPZSeWphn1HsQZmIrdXhR2U7mKCGB1xLGJkpsxXRwArnjmjLzYmfNxcs7XmXx nNUxYMwJahFBfcmbQejBYFGYlTRlsoSJTzcWvLNQjjNkdGYOcK3gmAKDS6/EUJndL2kF W6+Y9G/gcYLTXT+CgucqeGVVTLpYz9T11DD27FBDUrsee6aFrtyZFz8O2EMWsQLpAziK By7WNhivuhNDT9uFkQm5PNUWha6Jc+eTOuKoI7++Mcb6ZoDKoP/cJFPgk3G5TOM1CX/O GTx6SHBYKC/QLhWxggWETbrM+pZF/6ctRh3fMMHoDfoJbTO8p4S9pz0bVt6BBGvQFec6 Ng== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 35gx7y825r-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 18 Dec 2020 09:32:15 -0500 Received: from m0098404.ppops.net (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 0BIETW7D170745; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 09:32:14 -0500 Received: from ppma06fra.de.ibm.com (48.49.7a9f.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [159.122.73.72]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 35gx7y823h-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 18 Dec 2020 09:32:14 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0BIEOf8b013061; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 14:32:12 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay13.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.198]) by ppma06fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 35d310b30r-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 18 Dec 2020 14:32:12 +0000 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 0BIEW95u41419066 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 18 Dec 2020 14:32:09 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DEE711C04A; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 14:32:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9E8711C054; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 14:32:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from oc3016276355.ibm.com (unknown [9.145.46.39]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 14:32:08 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] s390x/pci: Fix memory_region_access_valid call To: Cornelia Huck References: <1608243397-29428-1-git-send-email-mjrosato@linux.ibm.com> <1608243397-29428-3-git-send-email-mjrosato@linux.ibm.com> <72f4e03f-7208-6af0-4cd2-9715d9f9ec77@linux.ibm.com> <20201218120440.36b56e80.cohuck@redhat.com> From: Pierre Morel Message-ID: <2c5a2ccb-dbe1-f355-3980-462be1d93942@linux.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 15:32:08 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20201218120440.36b56e80.cohuck@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.343, 18.0.737 definitions=2020-12-18_09:2020-12-18, 2020-12-18 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 clxscore=1015 malwarescore=0 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 priorityscore=1501 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2012180095 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=148.163.156.1; envelope-from=pmorel@linux.ibm.com; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com X-Spam_score_int: -26 X-Spam_score: -2.7 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.7 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: thuth@redhat.com, Matthew Rosato , david@redhat.com, richard.henderson@linaro.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, pasic@linux.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, qemu-s390x@nongnu.org Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On 12/18/20 12:04 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 10:37:38 +0100 > Pierre Morel wrote: > >> On 12/17/20 11:16 PM, Matthew Rosato wrote: >>> In pcistb_service_handler, a call is made to validate that the memory >>> region can be accessed. However, the call is made using the entire length >>> of the pcistb operation, which can be larger than the allowed memory >>> access size (8). Since we already know that the provided buffer is a >>> multiple of 8, fix the call to memory_region_access_valid to iterate >>> over the memory region in the same way as the subsequent call to >>> memory_region_dispatch_write. >>> >>> Fixes: 863f6f52b7 ("s390: implement pci instructions") >>> Signed-off-by: Matthew Rosato >>> --- >>> hw/s390x/s390-pci-inst.c | 10 ++++++---- >>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/hw/s390x/s390-pci-inst.c b/hw/s390x/s390-pci-inst.c >>> index e230293..76b08a3 100644 >>> --- a/hw/s390x/s390-pci-inst.c >>> +++ b/hw/s390x/s390-pci-inst.c >>> @@ -821,10 +821,12 @@ int pcistb_service_call(S390CPU *cpu, uint8_t r1, uint8_t r3, uint64_t gaddr, >>> mr = s390_get_subregion(mr, offset, len); >>> offset -= mr->addr; >>> >>> - if (!memory_region_access_valid(mr, offset, len, true, >>> - MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED)) { >>> - s390_program_interrupt(env, PGM_OPERAND, ra); >>> - return 0; >>> + for (i = 0; i < len; i += 8) { >>> + if (!memory_region_access_valid(mr, offset + i, 8, true, >>> + MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED)) { >>> + s390_program_interrupt(env, PGM_OPERAND, ra); >>> + return 0; >>> + } >>> } >>> >>> if (s390_cpu_virt_mem_read(cpu, gaddr, ar, buffer, len)) { >>> >> >> wouldn't it be made automatically by defining the io_region >> max_access_size when reading the bars in clp_service_call? >> > > But that's already what is happening, isn't it? The access check is > done for a size that is potentially too large, while the actual access > will happen in chunks of 8? I think that this patch is correct. > Sorry I was too rapid and half wrong in my writing I was also not specific enough. In MemoryRegionOps we have a field valid with a callback accepts(). I was wondering if doing the check in the accept() callback which is called by the memory_region_access_valid() function and then using max_access_size would not be cleaner. Note that it does not change a lot but only where the check is done. -- Pierre Morel IBM Lab Boeblingen