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=-8.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, 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 EFA7CC64E7A for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 05:43:20 +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 121782087D for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 05:43:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="A5B/OTcp" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 121782087D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:57978 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kjyRa-0007U5-26 for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2020 00:43:18 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:39490) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kjyQZ-000704-PQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2020 00:42:15 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:50164) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kjyQW-0003bJ-AS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2020 00:42:14 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1606801330; 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: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ia0tcH0nFs8YBFqo3fSuJh+vCbv3X4wqA3zqkK4QZAo=; b=A5B/OTcpyjjck7Ry5l99q+KfB+BUUUmL2H7fn9sCpIb5e1vS/Jl+j10KIavjiOPeTdnQOO zjydFjmEWtx/oDlbaLE4Xpay2fbxue0OY8eiIWiL6MskIgSYQb/Ak1KwSg2jlNa0PpCGE2 QN82JuyApvlGQbu/8WtHv45cbQjucBM= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-177-kg4dzVHKOqy37IGb-TuvNw-1; Tue, 01 Dec 2020 00:42:06 -0500 X-MC-Unique: kg4dzVHKOqy37IGb-TuvNw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B0DF8558E3; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 05:42:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.72.13.167] (ovpn-13-167.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.13.167]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38AAA6086F; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 05:42:02 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net/e1000e_core: adjust count if RDH exceeds RDT in e1000e_ring_advance() To: Mauro Matteo Cascella References: <20201113103113.223239-1-mcascell@redhat.com> <204556ad-c6ab-2caa-aee8-3e3f7e0f60c2@redhat.com> From: Jason Wang Message-ID: <201732a8-3d1e-0553-4812-b8e8885b896f@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 13:42:01 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=jasowang@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.205.24.124; envelope-from=jasowang@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -35 X-Spam_score: -3.6 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.496, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=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: gaoning.pgn@antgroup.com, 330cjfdn@gmail.com, Dmitry Fleytman , Laszlo Ersek , QEMU Developers Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On 2020/11/30 下午10:12, Mauro Matteo Cascella wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 3:58 AM Jason Wang wrote: >> >> On 2020/11/27 下午10:49, Mauro Matteo Cascella wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 6:21 AM Jason Wang wrote: >>>> On 2020/11/24 上午5:30, Mauro Matteo Cascella wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 6:57 AM Jason Wang wrote: >>>>>> On 2020/11/18 下午4:53, Mauro Matteo Cascella wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 4:56 AM Jason Wang wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2020/11/13 下午6:31, Mauro Matteo Cascella wrote: >>>>>>>>> The e1000e_write_packet_to_guest() function iterates over a set of >>>>>>>>> receive descriptors by advancing rx descriptor head register (RDH) from >>>>>>>>> its initial value to rx descriptor tail register (RDT). The check in >>>>>>>>> e1000e_ring_empty() is responsible for detecting whether RDH has reached >>>>>>>>> RDT, terminating the loop if that's the case. Additional checks have >>>>>>>>> been added in the past to deal with bogus values submitted by the guest >>>>>>>>> to prevent possible infinite loop. This is done by "wrapping around" RDH >>>>>>>>> at some point and detecting whether it assumes the original value during >>>>>>>>> the loop. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> However, when e1000e is configured to use the packet split feature, RDH is >>>>>>>>> incremented by two instead of one, as the packet split descriptors are >>>>>>>>> 32 bytes while regular descriptors are 16 bytes. A malicious or buggy >>>>>>>>> guest may set RDT to an odd value and transmit only null RX descriptors. >>>>>>>>> This corner case would prevent RDH from ever matching RDT, leading to an >>>>>>>>> infinite loop. This patch adds a check in e1000e_ring_advance() to make sure >>>>>>>>> RDH does not exceed RDT in a single incremental step, adjusting the count >>>>>>>>> value accordingly. >>>>>>>> Can this patch solve this issue in another way? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://patchew.org/QEMU/20201111130636.2208620-1-ppandit@redhat.com/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, it does work nicely. Still, I think this patch is useful to avoid >>>>>>> possible inconsistent state in e1000e_ring_advance() when count > 1. >>>>>> So if RDT is odd, it looks to me the following codes in >>>>>> e1000e_write_packet_to_guest() needs to be fixed as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> base = e1000e_ring_head_descr(core, rxi); >>>>>> >>>>>> pci_dma_read(d, base, &desc, core->rx_desc_len); >>>>>> >>>>>> Otherwise e1000e may try to read out of descriptor ring. >>>>> Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Isn't the base address >>>>> computed from RDH? How can e1000e read out of the descriptor ring if >>>>> RDT is odd? >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 6:57 AM Jason Wang wrote: >>>>>> On 2020/11/18 下午4:53, Mauro Matteo Cascella wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 4:56 AM Jason Wang wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2020/11/13 下午6:31, Mauro Matteo Cascella wrote: >>>>>>>>> The e1000e_write_packet_to_guest() function iterates over a set of >>>>>>>>> receive descriptors by advancing rx descriptor head register (RDH) from >>>>>>>>> its initial value to rx descriptor tail register (RDT). The check in >>>>>>>>> e1000e_ring_empty() is responsible for detecting whether RDH has reached >>>>>>>>> RDT, terminating the loop if that's the case. Additional checks have >>>>>>>>> been added in the past to deal with bogus values submitted by the guest >>>>>>>>> to prevent possible infinite loop. This is done by "wrapping around" RDH >>>>>>>>> at some point and detecting whether it assumes the original value during >>>>>>>>> the loop. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> However, when e1000e is configured to use the packet split feature, RDH is >>>>>>>>> incremented by two instead of one, as the packet split descriptors are >>>>>>>>> 32 bytes while regular descriptors are 16 bytes. A malicious or buggy >>>>>>>>> guest may set RDT to an odd value and transmit only null RX descriptors. >>>>>>>>> This corner case would prevent RDH from ever matching RDT, leading to an >>>>>>>>> infinite loop. This patch adds a check in e1000e_ring_advance() to make sure >>>>>>>>> RDH does not exceed RDT in a single incremental step, adjusting the count >>>>>>>>> value accordingly. >>>>>>>> Can this patch solve this issue in another way? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://patchew.org/QEMU/20201111130636.2208620-1-ppandit@redhat.com/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, it does work nicely. Still, I think this patch is useful to avoid >>>>>>> possible inconsistent state in e1000e_ring_advance() when count > 1. >>>>>> So if RDT is odd, it looks to me the following codes in >>>>>> e1000e_write_packet_to_guest() needs to be fixed as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> base = e1000e_ring_head_descr(core, rxi); >>>>>> >>>>>> pci_dma_read(d, base, &desc, core->rx_desc_len); >>>>>> >>>>>> Otherwise e1000e may try to read out of descriptor ring. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>> Sorry, I meant RDH actually, when packet split descriptor is used, it >>>> doesn't check whether DH exceeds DLEN? >>>> >>> When the packet split feature is used (i.e., count > 1) this patch >>> basically sets RDH=RDT in case the increment would exceed RDT. >> >> Can software set RDH to an odd value? If not, I think we are probably fine. >> >> Thanks >> > Honestly I don't know the answer to your question, my guess is that it > may be possible for a malicious/bogus guest to set RDH the same way as > RDT. > > Thank you, > -- > Mauro Matteo Cascella > Red Hat Product Security > PGP-Key ID: BB3410B0 > > Then I think we should fix that. Thanks