From: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>
To: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>
Cc: Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com>,
don.brace@microsemi.com, martin.petersen@oracle.com,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, jejb@linux.ibm.com,
esc.storagedev@microsemi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: [PATCH] iommu/amd: Check PM_LEVEL_SIZE() condition in locked section
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 11:38:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191018093830.GA26328@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <577A2A6B-3012-4CDE-BE57-3E0D628572CB@lca.pw>
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 07:36:51AM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
>
>
> > On Oct 16, 2019, at 6:59 PM, Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > I guess the mode level 6 check is really for other potential callers
> > increase_address_space, none exist at the moment, and the condition
> > of the while loop in alloc_pte should fail if the mode level is 6.
>
> Because there is no locking around iommu_map_page(), if there are
> several concurrent callers of it for the same domain, could it be that
> it silently corrupt data due to invalid access?
No, that can't happen because increase_address_space locks the domain
before actually doing anything. So the address space can't grow above
domain->mode == 6. But what can happen is that the WARN_ON_ONCE triggers
in there and that the address space is increased multiple times when
only one increase would be sufficient.
To fix this we just need to check the PM_LEVEL_SIZE() condition again
when we hold the lock:
From e930e792a998e89dfd4feef15fbbf289c45124dc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 11:34:22 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] iommu/amd: Check PM_LEVEL_SIZE() condition in locked section
The increase_address_space() function has to check the PM_LEVEL_SIZE()
condition again under the domain->lock to avoid a false trigger of the
WARN_ON_ONCE() and to avoid that the address space is increase more
often than necessary.
Reported-by: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>
Fixes: 754265bcab78 ("iommu/amd: Fix race in increase_address_space()")
Signed-off-by: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>
---
drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c | 7 ++++---
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c
index 2369b8af81f3..a0639e511ffe 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c
@@ -1463,6 +1463,7 @@ static void free_pagetable(struct protection_domain *domain)
* to 64 bits.
*/
static bool increase_address_space(struct protection_domain *domain,
+ unsigned long address,
gfp_t gfp)
{
unsigned long flags;
@@ -1471,8 +1472,8 @@ static bool increase_address_space(struct protection_domain *domain,
spin_lock_irqsave(&domain->lock, flags);
- if (WARN_ON_ONCE(domain->mode == PAGE_MODE_6_LEVEL))
- /* address space already 64 bit large */
+ if (address <= PM_LEVEL_SIZE(domain->mode) ||
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(domain->mode == PAGE_MODE_6_LEVEL))
goto out;
pte = (void *)get_zeroed_page(gfp);
@@ -1505,7 +1506,7 @@ static u64 *alloc_pte(struct protection_domain *domain,
BUG_ON(!is_power_of_2(page_size));
while (address > PM_LEVEL_SIZE(domain->mode))
- *updated = increase_address_space(domain, gfp) || *updated;
+ *updated = increase_address_space(domain, address, gfp) || *updated;
level = domain->mode - 1;
pte = &domain->pt_root[PM_LEVEL_INDEX(level, address)];
--
2.16.4
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-18 9:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-16 19:35 [PATCH -next] iommu/amd: fix a warning in increase_address_space Qian Cai
2019-10-16 22:04 ` Jerry Snitselaar
2019-10-16 22:58 ` Jerry Snitselaar
2019-10-17 11:36 ` Qian Cai
2019-10-18 9:38 ` Joerg Roedel [this message]
2019-10-18 14:48 ` [PATCH] iommu/amd: Check PM_LEVEL_SIZE() condition in locked section Jerry Snitselaar
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=20191018093830.GA26328@suse.de \
--to=jroedel@suse.de \
--cc=cai@lca.pw \
--cc=don.brace@microsemi.com \
--cc=esc.storagedev@microsemi.com \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jejb@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=jsnitsel@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.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).