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 Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01816C433FE for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 23:22:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EB9940873; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 23:22:04 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oEhl-IEymFyc; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 23:22:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.linuxfoundation.org (lf-lists.osuosl.org [140.211.9.56]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D971C408B0; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 23:22:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lf-lists.osuosl.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABB1BC0021; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 23:22:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A513C0011 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 23:22:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 624A8408B0 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 23:22:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TEJuPjLX-lEz for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 23:22:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0ED1D40873 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 23:21:59 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1645572118; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=U8LCl+4f18stHRWkVvOB03kwBny4qKctScgMtzCIqtE=; b=SnjxqR5leRr2eagsSKWmW1UEEmFSGmwUZkGI1SSvYV+cOvCKmyuV4Rq2ZEFQTryGWZV9JW UqPgVvfgb/s9ejZHCJO/yZCX0lEXEumJYQcEz545Q4yu6aZfRMGp2k5PKbHcfY9b+ddTBo zBBCJdC1111Nsk4XX0+bmutQ72YD3bs= Received: from mail-wm1-f72.google.com (mail-wm1-f72.google.com [209.85.128.72]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-426-XEVwNeY_PIeWwi6UxuiKwA-1; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 18:21:56 -0500 X-MC-Unique: XEVwNeY_PIeWwi6UxuiKwA-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f72.google.com with SMTP id v125-20020a1cac83000000b0037e3d70e7e1so168880wme.1 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 15:21:56 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=U8LCl+4f18stHRWkVvOB03kwBny4qKctScgMtzCIqtE=; b=oqILU404uCsR5y2lQtjaWBoUR35qP7MP8dU2TtNsN1rBEwXyhrtRqWVVv7LPnY0rSN DRdfVrPSpEdo0YFmL6pMWX57AHsUu/YKHnBuZfVCLES4YKvlHvmDLaRrkxsaMtJmb2LM 4/BDEeNSEfGuvZSoLvNjReb0bBVjxXHDIXeddJQgHPyueLIARo7/+6YlXPZmfN9ldVVM bH+EDd2/QNgRShGIyu+YeeLmnEd9XHgnyf75FYXFrKDEMr49BUfPDAWr/3OgZbhQQdZq LKMQsrcawJqs9EUQ/PZz0z4L1Muq+7uG3jZKU6Hc7A0yL64GawNoNGG1eHgGrrnIy1d4 qlrw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531f7M1iew3AY/KEF7ks4F1GfXa0p34+3F4MT7h/jONonBP6duSJ lx7kHEvi5xucjs1gbalkrzbdD0+SZ+OSGXjD7X825ryq5uvr47jDkyibXEgMoeLSO+29TT85Y9a T/f3Hu5j0s6IsLf6vifLReNNZ62h0CLHp2JMhozT9wQ== X-Received: by 2002:adf:fe0f:0:b0:1e2:f9dc:6ed with SMTP id n15-20020adffe0f000000b001e2f9dc06edmr21764151wrr.530.1645572115431; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 15:21:55 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyipX7Z9ZGrp/Zw4FgzcUylaolFtgKwxn5AEPJBrtD+ITbwiwoH1NkCRuDvBGr0SRQYwfXKtQ== X-Received: by 2002:adf:fe0f:0:b0:1e2:f9dc:6ed with SMTP id n15-20020adffe0f000000b001e2f9dc06edmr21764134wrr.530.1645572115110; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 15:21:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from redhat.com ([2.55.144.92]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ba14sm32686127wrb.56.2022.02.22.15.21.52 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 22 Feb 2022 15:21:53 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 18:21:50 -0500 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Anirudh Rayabharam Subject: Re: [PATCH] vhost: validate range size before adding to iotlb Message-ID: <20220222181927-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20220221195303.13560-1-mail@anirudhrb.com> <20220222090511-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=mst@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Disposition: inline Cc: kvm , netdev , linux-kernel , virtualization , syzbot+0abd373e2e50d704db87@syzkaller.appspotmail.com X-BeenThere: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux virtualization List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Sender: "Virtualization" On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 10:57:41PM +0530, Anirudh Rayabharam wrote: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 10:02:29AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 03:11:07PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 12:57 PM Anirudh Rayabharam wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 10:50:20AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 3:53 AM Anirudh Rayabharam wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In vhost_iotlb_add_range_ctx(), validate the range size is non-zero > > > > > > before proceeding with adding it to the iotlb. > > > > > > > > > > > > Range size can overflow to 0 when start is 0 and last is (2^64 - 1). > > > > > > One instance where it can happen is when userspace sends an IOTLB > > > > > > message with iova=size=uaddr=0 (vhost_process_iotlb_msg). So, an > > > > > > entry with size = 0, start = 0, last = (2^64 - 1) ends up in the > > > > > > iotlb. Next time a packet is sent, iotlb_access_ok() loops > > > > > > indefinitely due to that erroneous entry: > > > > > > > > > > > > Call Trace: > > > > > > > > > > > > iotlb_access_ok+0x21b/0x3e0 drivers/vhost/vhost.c:1340 > > > > > > vq_meta_prefetch+0xbc/0x280 drivers/vhost/vhost.c:1366 > > > > > > vhost_transport_do_send_pkt+0xe0/0xfd0 drivers/vhost/vsock.c:104 > > > > > > vhost_worker+0x23d/0x3d0 drivers/vhost/vhost.c:372 > > > > > > kthread+0x2e9/0x3a0 kernel/kthread.c:377 > > > > > > ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:295 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reported by syzbot at: > > > > > > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=0abd373e2e50d704db87 > > > > > > > > > > > > Reported-by: syzbot+0abd373e2e50d704db87@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > > > > > > Tested-by: syzbot+0abd373e2e50d704db87@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Anirudh Rayabharam > > > > > > --- > > > > > > drivers/vhost/iotlb.c | 6 ++++-- > > > > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/iotlb.c b/drivers/vhost/iotlb.c > > > > > > index 670d56c879e5..b9de74bd2f9c 100644 > > > > > > --- a/drivers/vhost/iotlb.c > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/vhost/iotlb.c > > > > > > @@ -53,8 +53,10 @@ int vhost_iotlb_add_range_ctx(struct vhost_iotlb *iotlb, > > > > > > void *opaque) > > > > > > { > > > > > > struct vhost_iotlb_map *map; > > > > > > + u64 size = last - start + 1; > > > > > > > > > > > > - if (last < start) > > > > > > + // size can overflow to 0 when start is 0 and last is (2^64 - 1). > > > > > > + if (last < start || size == 0) > > > > > > return -EFAULT; > > > > > > > > > > I'd move this check to vhost_chr_iter_write(), then for the device who > > > > > has its own msg handler (e.g vDPA) can benefit from it as well. > > > > > > > > Thanks for reviewing! > > > > > > > > I kept the check here thinking that all devices would benefit from it > > > > because they would need to call vhost_iotlb_add_range() to add an entry > > > > to the iotlb. Isn't that correct? > > > > > > Correct for now but not for the future, it's not guaranteed that the > > > per device iotlb message handler will use vhost iotlb. > > > > > > But I agree that we probably don't need to care about it too much now. > > > > > > > Do you see any other benefit in moving > > > > it to vhost_chr_iter_write()? > > > > > > > > One concern I have is that if we move it out some future caller to > > > > vhost_iotlb_add_range() might forget to handle this case. > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > Rethink the whole fix, we're basically rejecting [0, ULONG_MAX] range > > > which seems a little bit odd. > > > > Well, I guess ideally we'd split this up as two entries - this kind of > > thing is after all one of the reasons we initially used first,last as > > the API - as opposed to first,size. > > IIUC, the APIs exposed to userspace accept first,size. Some of them. /* vhost vdpa IOVA range * @first: First address that can be mapped by vhost-vDPA * @last: Last address that can be mapped by vhost-vDPA */ struct vhost_vdpa_iova_range { __u64 first; __u64 last; }; but struct vhost_iotlb_msg { __u64 iova; __u64 size; __u64 uaddr; #define VHOST_ACCESS_RO 0x1 #define VHOST_ACCESS_WO 0x2 #define VHOST_ACCESS_RW 0x3 __u8 perm; #define VHOST_IOTLB_MISS 1 #define VHOST_IOTLB_UPDATE 2 #define VHOST_IOTLB_INVALIDATE 3 #define VHOST_IOTLB_ACCESS_FAIL 4 /* * VHOST_IOTLB_BATCH_BEGIN and VHOST_IOTLB_BATCH_END allow modifying * multiple mappings in one go: beginning with * VHOST_IOTLB_BATCH_BEGIN, followed by any number of * VHOST_IOTLB_UPDATE messages, and ending with VHOST_IOTLB_BATCH_END. * When one of these two values is used as the message type, the rest * of the fields in the message are ignored. There's no guarantee that * these changes take place automatically in the device. */ #define VHOST_IOTLB_BATCH_BEGIN 5 #define VHOST_IOTLB_BATCH_END 6 __u8 type; }; > Which means that > right now there is now way for userspace to map this range. So, is there > any value in not simply rejecting this range? > > > > > Anirudh, could you do it like this instead of rejecting? > > > > > > > I wonder if it's better to just remove > > > the map->size. Having a quick glance at the the user, I don't see any > > > blocker for this. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > I think it's possible but won't solve the bug by itself, and we'd need > > to review and fix all users - a high chance of introducing > > another regression. > > Agreed, I did a quick review of the usages and getting rid of size > didn't seem trivial. > > Thanks, > > - Anirudh. > > > And I think there's value of fitting under the > > stable rule of 100 lines with context. > > So sure, but let's fix the bug first. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > - Anirudh. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if (iotlb->limit && > > > > > > @@ -69,7 +71,7 @@ int vhost_iotlb_add_range_ctx(struct vhost_iotlb *iotlb, > > > > > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > > > > > > > > > map->start = start; > > > > > > - map->size = last - start + 1; > > > > > > + map->size = size; > > > > > > map->last = last; > > > > > > map->addr = addr; > > > > > > map->perm = perm; > > > > > > -- > > > > > > 2.35.1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization