[PATCH 1/2] cxl: Fix allowing bogus AFU descriptors with 0 maximum processes

[PATCH 1/2] cxl: Fix allowing bogus AFU descriptors with 0 maximum processes

[Ian Munsie]

From: Ian Munsie <imunsie@au1.ibm.com>

If the AFU descriptor of an AFU directed AFU indicates that it supports
0 maximum processes, we will accept that value and attempt to use it.
The SPA will still be allocated (with 2 pages due to another minor bug
and room for 958 processes), and when a context is allocated we will
pass the value of 0 to idr_alloc as the maximum. However, idr_alloc will
treat that as meaning no maximum and will allocate a context number and
we return a valid context.

Conceivably, this could lead to a buffer overflow of the SPA if more
than 958 contexts were allocated, however this is mitigated by the fact
that there are no known AFUs in the wild with a bogus AFU descriptor
like this, and that only the root user is allowed to flash an AFU image
to a card.

Add a check when validating the AFU descriptor to reject any with 0
maximum processes.

We do still allow a dedicated process only AFU to indicate that it
supports 0 contexts even though that is forbidden in the architecture,
as in that case we ignore the value and use 1 instead. This is just on
the off-chance that such a dedicated process AFU may exist (not that I
am aware of any), since their developers are less likely to have cared
about this value at all.

Signed-off-by: Ian Munsie <imunsie@au1.ibm.com>
---
 drivers/misc/cxl/pci.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/misc/cxl/pci.c b/drivers/misc/cxl/pci.c
index 648817a..58d7d821 100644
--- a/drivers/misc/cxl/pci.c
+++ b/drivers/misc/cxl/pci.c
@@ -775,6 +775,21 @@ static int cxl_afu_descriptor_looks_ok(struct cxl_afu *afu)
 		}
 	}
 
+	if ((afu->modes_supported & ~CXL_MODE_DEDICATED) && afu->max_procs_virtualised == 0) {
+		/*
+		 * We could also check this for the dedicated process model
+		 * since the architecture indicates it should be set to 1, but
+		 * in that case we ignore the value and I'd rather not risk
+		 * breaking any existing dedicated process AFUs that left it as
+		 * 0 (not that I'm aware of any). It is clearly an error for an
+		 * AFU directed AFU to set this to 0, and would have previously
+		 * triggered a bug resulting in the maximum not being enforced
+		 * at all since idr_alloc treats 0 as no maximum.
+		 */
+		dev_err(&afu->dev, "AFU does not support any processes\n");
+		return -EINVAL;
+	}
+
 	return 0;
 }
 
-- 
2.8.1

[PATCH 2/2] cxl: Fix allocating a minimum of 2 pages for the SPA

[Ian Munsie]

From: Ian Munsie <imunsie@au1.ibm.com>

The Scheduled Process Area is allocated dynamically with enough pages to
fit at least as many processes as the AFU descriptor indicated. Since
the calculation is non-trivial, it does this by calculating how many
processes could fit in an allocation of a given order, and increasing
that order until it can fit enough processes or hits the maximum
supported size.

Currently, it will start this search using a SPA of 2 pages instead of
1. This can waste a page of memory if the AFU's maximum number of
supported processes was small enough to fit in one page.

Fix the algorithm to start the search at 1 page.

Signed-off-by: Ian Munsie <imunsie@au1.ibm.com>
---
 drivers/misc/cxl/native.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/misc/cxl/native.c b/drivers/misc/cxl/native.c
index e80d8f7..120c468 100644
--- a/drivers/misc/cxl/native.c
+++ b/drivers/misc/cxl/native.c
@@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ int cxl_alloc_spa(struct cxl_afu *afu)
 	unsigned spa_size;
 
 	/* Work out how many pages to allocate */
-	afu->native->spa_order = 0;
+	afu->native->spa_order = -1;
 	do {
 		afu->native->spa_order++;
 		spa_size = (1 << afu->native->spa_order) * PAGE_SIZE;
-- 
2.8.1

Re: [PATCH 2/2] cxl: Fix allocating a minimum of 2 pages for the SPA

[Frederic Barrat]

Le 29/06/2016 14:16, Ian Munsie a écrit :
> From: Ian Munsie <imunsie@au1.ibm.com>
>
> The Scheduled Process Area is allocated dynamically with enough pages to
> fit at least as many processes as the AFU descriptor indicated. Since
> the calculation is non-trivial, it does this by calculating how many
> processes could fit in an allocation of a given order, and increasing
> that order until it can fit enough processes or hits the maximum
> supported size.
>
> Currently, it will start this search using a SPA of 2 pages instead of
> 1. This can waste a page of memory if the AFU's maximum number of
> supported processes was small enough to fit in one page.
>
> Fix the algorithm to start the search at 1 page.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ian Munsie <imunsie@au1.ibm.com>


Reviewed-by: Frederic Barrat <fbarrat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Re: [PATCH 2/2] cxl: Fix allocating a minimum of 2 pages for the SPA

[Andrew Donnellan]

On 29/06/16 22:16, Ian Munsie wrote:
> From: Ian Munsie <imunsie@au1.ibm.com>
>
> The Scheduled Process Area is allocated dynamically with enough pages to
> fit at least as many processes as the AFU descriptor indicated. Since
> the calculation is non-trivial, it does this by calculating how many
> processes could fit in an allocation of a given order, and increasing
> that order until it can fit enough processes or hits the maximum
> supported size.
>
> Currently, it will start this search using a SPA of 2 pages instead of
> 1. This can waste a page of memory if the AFU's maximum number of
> supported processes was small enough to fit in one page.
>
> Fix the algorithm to start the search at 1 page.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ian Munsie <imunsie@au1.ibm.com>

Makes sense.

Reviewed-by: Andrew Donnellan <andrew.donnellan@au1.ibm.com>

-- 
Andrew Donnellan              OzLabs, ADL Canberra
andrew.donnellan@au1.ibm.com  IBM Australia Limited

Re: [2/2] cxl: Fix allocating a minimum of 2 pages for the SPA

[Michael Ellerman]

On Wed, 2016-29-06 at 12:16:26 UTC, Ian Munsie wrote:
> From: Ian Munsie <imunsie@au1.ibm.com>
> 
> The Scheduled Process Area is allocated dynamically with enough pages to
> fit at least as many processes as the AFU descriptor indicated. Since
> the calculation is non-trivial, it does this by calculating how many
> processes could fit in an allocation of a given order, and increasing
> that order until it can fit enough processes or hits the maximum
> supported size.
> 
> Currently, it will start this search using a SPA of 2 pages instead of
> 1. This can waste a page of memory if the AFU's maximum number of
> supported processes was small enough to fit in one page.
> 
> Fix the algorithm to start the search at 1 page.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ian Munsie <imunsie@au1.ibm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Frederic Barrat <fbarrat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Andrew Donnellan <andrew.donnellan@au1.ibm.com>

Applied to powerpc next, thanks.

https://git.kernel.org/powerpc/c/2224b6719b09052a9fbf29422a

cheers

Re: [PATCH 1/2] cxl: Fix allowing bogus AFU descriptors with 0 maximum processes

[Frederic Barrat]

Le 29/06/2016 14:16, Ian Munsie a écrit :
> From: Ian Munsie <imunsie@au1.ibm.com>
>
> If the AFU descriptor of an AFU directed AFU indicates that it supports
> 0 maximum processes, we will accept that value and attempt to use it.
> The SPA will still be allocated (with 2 pages due to another minor bug
> and room for 958 processes), and when a context is allocated we will
> pass the value of 0 to idr_alloc as the maximum. However, idr_alloc will
> treat that as meaning no maximum and will allocate a context number and
> we return a valid context.
>
> Conceivably, this could lead to a buffer overflow of the SPA if more
> than 958 contexts were allocated, however this is mitigated by the fact
> that there are no known AFUs in the wild with a bogus AFU descriptor
> like this, and that only the root user is allowed to flash an AFU image
> to a card.
>
> Add a check when validating the AFU descriptor to reject any with 0
> maximum processes.
>
> We do still allow a dedicated process only AFU to indicate that it
> supports 0 contexts even though that is forbidden in the architecture,
> as in that case we ignore the value and use 1 instead. This is just on
> the off-chance that such a dedicated process AFU may exist (not that I
> am aware of any), since their developers are less likely to have cared
> about this value at all.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ian Munsie <imunsie@au1.ibm.com>


Reviewed-by: Frederic Barrat <fbarrat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Re: [PATCH 1/2] cxl: Fix allowing bogus AFU descriptors with 0 maximum processes

[Andrew Donnellan]

On 29/06/16 22:16, Ian Munsie wrote:
> From: Ian Munsie <imunsie@au1.ibm.com>
>
> If the AFU descriptor of an AFU directed AFU indicates that it supports
> 0 maximum processes, we will accept that value and attempt to use it.
> The SPA will still be allocated (with 2 pages due to another minor bug
> and room for 958 processes), and when a context is allocated we will
> pass the value of 0 to idr_alloc as the maximum. However, idr_alloc will
> treat that as meaning no maximum and will allocate a context number and
> we return a valid context.
>
> Conceivably, this could lead to a buffer overflow of the SPA if more
> than 958 contexts were allocated, however this is mitigated by the fact
> that there are no known AFUs in the wild with a bogus AFU descriptor
> like this, and that only the root user is allowed to flash an AFU image
> to a card.
>
> Add a check when validating the AFU descriptor to reject any with 0
> maximum processes.
>
> We do still allow a dedicated process only AFU to indicate that it
> supports 0 contexts even though that is forbidden in the architecture,
> as in that case we ignore the value and use 1 instead. This is just on
> the off-chance that such a dedicated process AFU may exist (not that I
> am aware of any), since their developers are less likely to have cared
> about this value at all.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ian Munsie <imunsie@au1.ibm.com>

Looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Andrew Donnellan <andrew.donnellan@au1.ibm.com>

-- 
Andrew Donnellan              OzLabs, ADL Canberra
andrew.donnellan@au1.ibm.com  IBM Australia Limited

Re: [1/2] cxl: Fix allowing bogus AFU descriptors with 0 maximum processes

[Michael Ellerman]

On Wed, 2016-29-06 at 12:16:25 UTC, Ian Munsie wrote:
> From: Ian Munsie <imunsie@au1.ibm.com>
> 
> If the AFU descriptor of an AFU directed AFU indicates that it supports
> 0 maximum processes, we will accept that value and attempt to use it.
> The SPA will still be allocated (with 2 pages due to another minor bug
> and room for 958 processes), and when a context is allocated we will
> pass the value of 0 to idr_alloc as the maximum. However, idr_alloc will
> treat that as meaning no maximum and will allocate a context number and
> we return a valid context.
> 
> Conceivably, this could lead to a buffer overflow of the SPA if more
> than 958 contexts were allocated, however this is mitigated by the fact
> that there are no known AFUs in the wild with a bogus AFU descriptor
> like this, and that only the root user is allowed to flash an AFU image
> to a card.
> 
> Add a check when validating the AFU descriptor to reject any with 0
> maximum processes.
> 
> We do still allow a dedicated process only AFU to indicate that it
> supports 0 contexts even though that is forbidden in the architecture,
> as in that case we ignore the value and use 1 instead. This is just on
> the off-chance that such a dedicated process AFU may exist (not that I
> am aware of any), since their developers are less likely to have cared
> about this value at all.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ian Munsie <imunsie@au1.ibm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Frederic Barrat <fbarrat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Andrew Donnellan <andrew.donnellan@au1.ibm.com>

Applied to powerpc next, thanks.

https://git.kernel.org/powerpc/c/49e9c99f47fc43abc9598f9fcf

cheers