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 vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 324A9C433F5 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 15:15:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S241360AbiBWPPm (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:15:42 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:51496 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S241193AbiBWPPi (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:15:38 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8773B8B53 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 07:15:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1645629310; 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=dCMgKviucmFb+0BPWDTsDuPd2Zjl1OVfg24GCc4UdXM=; b=gtSxhL2RiyPuC4nTHkoMquT8XiAnjJbdvuItZVvwcsQxlPf/pt8dJJHaRgYEEdXlia5IIb qBh1LUezdpL1h+uXKAYc9M1MuGrWb+UTTIt9PgQFY19xs+YuI7iLeBFSxGK0rT337o1LmO Y+VDGj5tiS5l93jx1DptLhUfwTtnk0U= Received: from mail-ed1-f69.google.com (mail-ed1-f69.google.com [209.85.208.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-55-VsnDby-FOti01-v-NzyBcg-1; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:15:08 -0500 X-MC-Unique: VsnDby-FOti01-v-NzyBcg-1 Received: by mail-ed1-f69.google.com with SMTP id m12-20020a056402510c00b00413298c3c42so2523891edd.15 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 07:15:08 -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=dCMgKviucmFb+0BPWDTsDuPd2Zjl1OVfg24GCc4UdXM=; b=Kzh7DebqKVUO431qqSSD7D3335uWopmc/i5uM5SoWMytfQBvHXaxWLkdmk+6DYZbyv Ku4DxL2gwtoIy2yreihcvTscBkQTIAsEsESRqPDs3pA8G1vZPivyuhx+zXiDW5ZtVjG+ VGYMhf4gE7kLxAvpe5AaFc4Qo1nBg6kELVsRROFBtwrX9BP3AxxpAhPeT8piyEcUZcG1 7vztlaJZ/e/Rr1YFXlpE9ZasJqvFHPin8swIA3w98g3JNhLIljf6wBrjvfLQy+J2M7Pm rw/YEruA5eMxfQi/jsJhpEYwIiyXbpoaAhOhTP+JTYLSsvBpwK2d/ZghYb1t5dKrhRZz mcEw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530B/NntbGbrBMI/+k5OxCwGT2CjitBZnVqi+69T225nBsRPNG8M dYz9LrZz5nQthROSFVySCeFttD6GcNnsBz3UL/C2gEed6T/X0v5+57KECRgkBHWMNmSyzN7Guzc 16z7BZ+QfAYJQp3t/AvNUWMa2 X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:4396:b0:412:b131:fca6 with SMTP id o22-20020a056402439600b00412b131fca6mr30292898edc.133.1645629307347; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 07:15:07 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxJu+kZxsMB4UspF1AR/QTJajCnFTlZ0ieR7BV0uotNY1PHMc9JdY3Is/f5a5BQjRJmjZzSqA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:4396:b0:412:b131:fca6 with SMTP id o22-20020a056402439600b00412b131fca6mr30292872edc.133.1645629307050; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 07:15:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from redhat.com ([2.55.144.92]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n2sm7925253ejl.86.2022.02.23.07.15.03 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 23 Feb 2022 07:15:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:15:01 -0500 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Anirudh Rayabharam Cc: Jason Wang , syzbot+0abd373e2e50d704db87@syzkaller.appspotmail.com, kvm , virtualization , netdev , linux-kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH] vhost: validate range size before adding to iotlb Message-ID: <20220223101303-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20220221195303.13560-1-mail@anirudhrb.com> <20220222090511-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20220222181927-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 07:48:18PM +0530, Anirudh Rayabharam wrote: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 06:21:50PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > 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; > > }; > > Alright, I will split it into two entries. That doesn't fully address > the bug though. I would also need to validate size in vhost_chr_iter_write(). Do you mean vhost_chr_write_iter? > > Should I do both in one patch or as a two patch series? I'm not sure why we need to do validation in vhost_chr_iter_write, hard to say without seeing the patch. > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >