[13/13] vfio/type1: Mark follow_pfn as unsafe
diff mbox series

Message ID 20201007164426.1812530-14-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch
State New, archived
Headers show
Series
  • follow_pfn and other iomap races
Related show

Commit Message

Daniel Vetter Oct. 7, 2020, 4:44 p.m. UTC
The code seems to stuff these pfns into iommu pts (or something like
that, I didn't follow), but there's no mmu_notifier to ensure that
access is synchronized with pte updates.

Hence mark these as unsafe. This means that with
CONFIG_STRICT_FOLLOW_PFN, these will be rejected.

Real fix is to wire up an mmu_notifier ... somehow. Probably means any
invalidate is a fatal fault for this vfio device, but then this
shouldn't ever happen if userspace is reasonable.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
Cc: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
Cc: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org
---
 drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Comments

Jason Gunthorpe Oct. 7, 2020, 5:39 p.m. UTC | #1
On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 06:44:26PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> The code seems to stuff these pfns into iommu pts (or something like
> that, I didn't follow), but there's no mmu_notifier to ensure that
> access is synchronized with pte updates.
> 
> Hence mark these as unsafe. This means that with
> CONFIG_STRICT_FOLLOW_PFN, these will be rejected.
> 
> Real fix is to wire up an mmu_notifier ... somehow. Probably means any
> invalidate is a fatal fault for this vfio device, but then this
> shouldn't ever happen if userspace is reasonable.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
> Cc: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> Cc: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
> Cc: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
> Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org
> ---
>  drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> index 5fbf0c1f7433..a4d53f3d0a35 100644
> --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> @@ -421,7 +421,7 @@ static int follow_fault_pfn(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct mm_struct *mm,
>  {
>  	int ret;
>  
> -	ret = follow_pfn(vma, vaddr, pfn);
> +	ret = unsafe_follow_pfn(vma, vaddr, pfn);
>  	if (ret) {
>  		bool unlocked = false;
>  
> @@ -435,7 +435,7 @@ static int follow_fault_pfn(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct mm_struct *mm,
>  		if (ret)
>  			return ret;
>  
> -		ret = follow_pfn(vma, vaddr, pfn);
> +		ret = unsafe_follow_pfn(vma, vaddr, pfn);
>  	}

This is actually being commonly used, so it needs fixing.

When I talked to Alex about this last we had worked out a patch series
that adds a test on vm_ops that the vma came from vfio in the first
place. The VMA's created by VFIO are 'safe' as the PTEs are never changed.

Jason
Daniel Vetter Oct. 7, 2020, 6:14 p.m. UTC | #2
On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 7:39 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 06:44:26PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > The code seems to stuff these pfns into iommu pts (or something like
> > that, I didn't follow), but there's no mmu_notifier to ensure that
> > access is synchronized with pte updates.
> >
> > Hence mark these as unsafe. This means that with
> > CONFIG_STRICT_FOLLOW_PFN, these will be rejected.
> >
> > Real fix is to wire up an mmu_notifier ... somehow. Probably means any
> > invalidate is a fatal fault for this vfio device, but then this
> > shouldn't ever happen if userspace is reasonable.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
> > Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
> > Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> > Cc: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
> > Cc: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> > Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
> > Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> > Cc: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
> > Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org
> > ---
> >  drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c | 4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > index 5fbf0c1f7433..a4d53f3d0a35 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > @@ -421,7 +421,7 @@ static int follow_fault_pfn(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct mm_struct *mm,
> >  {
> >       int ret;
> >
> > -     ret = follow_pfn(vma, vaddr, pfn);
> > +     ret = unsafe_follow_pfn(vma, vaddr, pfn);
> >       if (ret) {
> >               bool unlocked = false;
> >
> > @@ -435,7 +435,7 @@ static int follow_fault_pfn(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct mm_struct *mm,
> >               if (ret)
> >                       return ret;
> >
> > -             ret = follow_pfn(vma, vaddr, pfn);
> > +             ret = unsafe_follow_pfn(vma, vaddr, pfn);
> >       }
>
> This is actually being commonly used, so it needs fixing.
>
> When I talked to Alex about this last we had worked out a patch series
> that adds a test on vm_ops that the vma came from vfio in the first
> place. The VMA's created by VFIO are 'safe' as the PTEs are never changed.

Hm, but wouldn't need that the semi-nasty vma_open trick to make sure
that vma doesn't untimely disappear? Or is the idea to look up the
underlying vfio object, and refcount that directly?
-Daniel
Jason Gunthorpe Oct. 7, 2020, 6:47 p.m. UTC | #3
On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 08:14:06PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:

> Hm, but wouldn't need that the semi-nasty vma_open trick to make sure
> that vma doesn't untimely disappear? Or is the idea to look up the
> underlying vfio object, and refcount that directly?

Ah, the patches Alex was working on had the refcount I think, it does
need co-ordination across multiple VFIO instances IIRC.

At least a simple check would guarentee we only have exposed PCI BAR
pages which is not as bad security wise as the other stuff.

Jason

Patch
diff mbox series

diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
index 5fbf0c1f7433..a4d53f3d0a35 100644
--- a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
+++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
@@ -421,7 +421,7 @@  static int follow_fault_pfn(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct mm_struct *mm,
 {
 	int ret;
 
-	ret = follow_pfn(vma, vaddr, pfn);
+	ret = unsafe_follow_pfn(vma, vaddr, pfn);
 	if (ret) {
 		bool unlocked = false;
 
@@ -435,7 +435,7 @@  static int follow_fault_pfn(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct mm_struct *mm,
 		if (ret)
 			return ret;
 
-		ret = follow_pfn(vma, vaddr, pfn);
+		ret = unsafe_follow_pfn(vma, vaddr, pfn);
 	}
 
 	return ret;