From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Collin Walling <walling@linux.ibm.com>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-s390x@nongnu.org
Cc: thuth@redhat.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com, mst@redhat.com,
cohuck@redhat.com, pasic@linux.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com,
svens@linux.ibm.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, mihajlov@linux.ibm.com,
rth@twiddle.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/8] s390/sclp: rework sclp boundary and length checks
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 10:17:54 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <89b72ce5-39c7-3080-286a-ab6ed59afb7e@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200624202312.28349-4-walling@linux.ibm.com>
On 24.06.20 22:23, Collin Walling wrote:
> Rework the SCLP boundary check to account for different SCLP commands
> (eventually) allowing different boundary sizes.
>
> Move the length check code into a separate function, and introduce a
> new function to determine the length of the read SCP data (i.e. the size
> from the start of the struct to where the CPU entries should begin).
>
> The format of read CPU info is unlikely to change in the future,
> so we do not require a separate function to calculate its length.
>
> Signed-off-by: Collin Walling <walling@linux.ibm.com>
> Acked-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
> ---
> hw/s390x/sclp.c | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/s390x/sclp.c b/hw/s390x/sclp.c
> index 181ce04007..5899c1e3b8 100644
> --- a/hw/s390x/sclp.c
> +++ b/hw/s390x/sclp.c
> @@ -49,6 +49,34 @@ static inline bool sclp_command_code_valid(uint32_t code)
> return false;
> }
>
> +static bool sccb_verify_boundary(uint64_t sccb_addr, uint32_t code,
> + SCCBHeader *header)
> +{
> + uint64_t sccb_max_addr = sccb_addr + be16_to_cpu(header->length) - 1;
> + uint64_t sccb_boundary = (sccb_addr & PAGE_MASK) + PAGE_SIZE;
> +
> + switch (code & SCLP_CMD_CODE_MASK) {
> + default:
> + if (sccb_max_addr < sccb_boundary) {
> + return true;
> + }
> + }
^ what is that?
if ((code & SCLP_CMD_CODE_MASK) && sccb_max_addr < sccb_boundary) {
return true;
}
> + header->response_code = cpu_to_be16(SCLP_RC_SCCB_BOUNDARY_VIOLATION);
> + return false;
So we return "false" on success? At least I consider that weird when
returning the bool type. Maybe make it clearer what the function indicates
"sccb_boundary_is_invalid"
or leave it named as is and switch from return value "bool" to "int",
using "0" on success and "-EINVAL" on error.
> +}
> +
> +/* Calculates sufficient SCCB length to store a full Read SCP/CPU response */
> +static bool sccb_verify_length(SCCB *sccb, int num_cpus, int offset_cpu)
> +{
> + int required_len = offset_cpu + num_cpus * sizeof(CPUEntry);
> +
> + if (be16_to_cpu(sccb->h.length) < required_len) {
> + sccb->h.response_code = cpu_to_be16(SCLP_RC_INSUFFICIENT_SCCB_LENGTH);
> + return false;
> + }
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> static void prepare_cpu_entries(MachineState *ms, CPUEntry *entry, int *count)
> {
> uint8_t features[SCCB_CPU_FEATURE_LEN] = { 0 };
> @@ -66,6 +94,11 @@ static void prepare_cpu_entries(MachineState *ms, CPUEntry *entry, int *count)
> }
> }
>
> +static inline int get_read_scp_info_offset_cpu(void)
> +{
> + return offsetof(ReadInfo, entries);
> +}
> +
> /* Provide information about the configuration, CPUs and storage */
> static void read_SCP_info(SCLPDevice *sclp, SCCB *sccb)
> {
> @@ -74,17 +107,16 @@ static void read_SCP_info(SCLPDevice *sclp, SCCB *sccb)
> int cpu_count;
> int rnsize, rnmax;
> IplParameterBlock *ipib = s390_ipl_get_iplb();
> + int offset_cpu = get_read_scp_info_offset_cpu();
>
> - if (be16_to_cpu(sccb->h.length) <
> - (sizeof(ReadInfo) + machine->possible_cpus->len * sizeof(CPUEntry))) {
> - sccb->h.response_code = cpu_to_be16(SCLP_RC_INSUFFICIENT_SCCB_LENGTH);
> + if (!sccb_verify_length(sccb, machine->possible_cpus->len, offset_cpu)) {
> return;
> }
>
> /* CPU information */
> prepare_cpu_entries(machine, read_info->entries, &cpu_count);
> read_info->entries_cpu = cpu_to_be16(cpu_count);
> - read_info->offset_cpu = cpu_to_be16(offsetof(ReadInfo, entries));
> + read_info->offset_cpu = cpu_to_be16(offset_cpu);
> read_info->highest_cpu = cpu_to_be16(machine->smp.max_cpus - 1);
>
> read_info->ibc_val = cpu_to_be32(s390_get_ibc_val());
> @@ -133,17 +165,16 @@ static void sclp_read_cpu_info(SCLPDevice *sclp, SCCB *sccb)
> {
> MachineState *machine = MACHINE(qdev_get_machine());
> ReadCpuInfo *cpu_info = (ReadCpuInfo *) sccb;
> + int offset_cpu = offsetof(ReadCpuInfo, entries);
> int cpu_count;
>
> - if (be16_to_cpu(sccb->h.length) <
> - (sizeof(ReadInfo) + machine->possible_cpus->len * sizeof(CPUEntry))) {
> - sccb->h.response_code = cpu_to_be16(SCLP_RC_INSUFFICIENT_SCCB_LENGTH);
> + if (!sccb_verify_length(sccb, machine->possible_cpus->len, offset_cpu)) {
> return;
> }
>
> prepare_cpu_entries(machine, cpu_info->entries, &cpu_count);
> cpu_info->nr_configured = cpu_to_be16(cpu_count);
> - cpu_info->offset_configured = cpu_to_be16(offsetof(ReadCpuInfo, entries));
> + cpu_info->offset_configured = cpu_to_be16(offset_cpu);
> cpu_info->nr_standby = cpu_to_be16(0);
>
> /* The standby offset is 16-byte for each CPU */
> @@ -229,6 +260,10 @@ int sclp_service_call_protected(CPUS390XState *env, uint64_t sccb,
> goto out_write;
> }
>
> + if (!sccb_verify_boundary(sccb, code, &work_sccb.h)) {
> + goto out_write;
> + }
> +
> sclp_c->execute(sclp, &work_sccb, code);
> out_write:
> s390_cpu_pv_mem_write(env_archcpu(env), 0, &work_sccb,
> @@ -274,8 +309,7 @@ int sclp_service_call(CPUS390XState *env, uint64_t sccb, uint32_t code)
> goto out_write;
> }
>
> - if ((sccb + be16_to_cpu(work_sccb.h.length)) > ((sccb & PAGE_MASK) + PAGE_SIZE)) {
> - work_sccb.h.response_code = cpu_to_be16(SCLP_RC_SCCB_BOUNDARY_VIOLATION);
> + if (!sccb_verify_boundary(sccb, code, &work_sccb.h)) {
> goto out_write;
> }
>
>
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-20 8:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-24 20:23 [PATCH v4 0/8] s390: Extended-Length SCCB & DIAGNOSE 0x318 Collin Walling
2020-06-24 20:23 ` [PATCH v4 1/8] s390/sclp: get machine once during read scp/cpu info Collin Walling
2020-06-24 20:23 ` [PATCH v4 2/8] s390/sclp: check sccb len before filling in data Collin Walling
2020-06-24 20:23 ` [PATCH v4 3/8] s390/sclp: rework sclp boundary and length checks Collin Walling
2020-06-25 6:29 ` Thomas Huth
2020-07-20 8:17 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2020-07-20 20:06 ` Collin Walling
2020-07-21 8:41 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-21 18:40 ` Collin Walling
2020-07-23 6:26 ` Cornelia Huck
2020-07-24 15:06 ` Collin Walling
2020-06-24 20:23 ` [PATCH v4 4/8] s390/sclp: read sccb from mem based on sccb length Collin Walling
2020-07-20 8:19 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-20 20:06 ` Collin Walling
2020-06-24 20:23 ` [PATCH v4 5/8] s390/sclp: use cpu offset to locate cpu entries Collin Walling
2020-06-24 20:23 ` [PATCH v4 6/8] s390/sclp: add extended-length sccb support for kvm guest Collin Walling
2020-06-26 10:01 ` Cornelia Huck
2020-07-15 15:35 ` Collin Walling
2020-07-15 16:05 ` Cornelia Huck
2020-06-24 20:23 ` [PATCH v4 7/8] s390/kvm: header sync for diag318 Collin Walling
2020-06-24 20:23 ` [PATCH v4 8/8] s390: guest support for diagnose 0x318 Collin Walling
2020-06-26 10:03 ` Cornelia Huck
2020-07-15 15:36 ` [PATCH v4 0/8] s390: Extended-Length SCCB & DIAGNOSE 0x318 Collin Walling
2020-07-15 16:04 ` Cornelia Huck
2020-07-15 16:26 ` Collin Walling
2020-07-16 12:02 ` Cornelia Huck
2020-09-09 7:54 ` Christian Borntraeger
2020-09-09 8:46 ` Cornelia Huck
2020-09-09 9:43 ` Cornelia Huck
2020-09-09 18:13 ` Collin Walling
2020-09-10 6:38 ` Cornelia Huck
2020-09-10 6:49 ` Collin Walling
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=89b72ce5-39c7-3080-286a-ab6ed59afb7e@redhat.com \
--to=david@redhat.com \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=frankja@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=mihajlov@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=pasic@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=qemu-s390x@nongnu.org \
--cc=rth@twiddle.net \
--cc=svens@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=thuth@redhat.com \
--cc=walling@linux.ibm.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).