On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 7:38 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 01:48:57PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 11:05:01AM +0200, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 6:34 AM Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 2020/9/4 上午12:14, Eugenio Pérez wrote:
> > > > > Device IOTLB invalidations can unmap arbitrary ranges, eiter outside
> > > > > of
> > > > > the memory region or even [0, ~0ULL] for all the space. The assertion
> > > > > could be hit by a guest, and rhel7 guest effectively hit it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Eugenio Pérez <epere...@redhat.com>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Juan Quintela <quint...@redhat.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > softmmu/memory.c | 13 +++++++++++--
> > > > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/softmmu/memory.c b/softmmu/memory.c
> > > > > index 8694fc7cf7..e723fcbaa1 100644
> > > > > --- a/softmmu/memory.c
> > > > > +++ b/softmmu/memory.c
> > > > > @@ -1895,6 +1895,7 @@ void
> > > > > memory_region_notify_iommu_one(IOMMUNotifier *notifier,
> > > > > {
> > > > > IOMMUTLBEntry *entry = &event->entry;
> > > > > hwaddr entry_end = entry->iova + entry->addr_mask;
> > > > > + IOMMUTLBEntry tmp = *entry;
> > > > >
> > > > > if (event->type == IOMMU_NOTIFIER_UNMAP) {
> > > > > assert(entry->perm == IOMMU_NONE);
> > > > > @@ -1908,10 +1909,18 @@ void
> > > > > memory_region_notify_iommu_one(IOMMUNotifier *notifier,
> > > > > return;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > - assert(entry->iova >= notifier->start && entry_end <=
> > > > > notifier->end);
> > > > > + if (notifier->notifier_flags & IOMMU_NOTIFIER_DEVIOTLB_UNMAP) {
> > > > > + /* Crop (iova, addr_mask) to range */
> > > > > + tmp.iova = MAX(tmp.iova, notifier->start);
> > > > > + tmp.addr_mask = MIN(entry_end, notifier->end) - tmp.iova;
> > > > > + /* Confirm no underflow */
> > > > > + assert(MIN(entry_end, notifier->end) >= tmp.iova);
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's still not clear to me why we need such assert. Consider
> > > > notifier->end is the possible IOVA range but not possible device IOTLB
> > > > invalidation range (e.g it allows [0, ULLONG_MAX]).
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > >
> > > As far as I understood the device should admit that out of bounds
> > > notifications in that case,
> > > and the assert just makes sure that there was no underflow in
> > > tmp.addr_mask, i.e., that something
> > > very wrong that should never happen in production happened.
> > >
> > > Peter, would you mind to confirm/correct it?
> >
> > I think Jason is right - since we have checked at the entry that the two
> > regions cross over each other:
> >
> > /*
> > * Skip the notification if the notification does not overlap
> > * with registered range.
> > */
> > if (notifier->start > entry_end || notifier->end < entry->iova) {
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > Then I don't see how this assertion can fail any more.
> >
> > But imho not a big problem either, and it shouldn't hurt to even keep the
> > assertion of above isn't that straightforward.
> >
> > >
> > > Is there anything else needed to pull this patch?
> >
> > I didn't post a pull for this only because I shouldn't :) - the plan was
> > that
> > all vt-d patches will still go via Michael's tree, iiuc. Though at least
> > to me
> > I think this series is acceptable for merging.
>
> Sure, that's ok.
>
> Eugenio, you sent patch 0 as a response to another series, which
> made me miss the series. Pls don't do that in the future.
>
Sorry, noted for the next time.
Thanks!
> Looks like Jason reviewed the series - Jason, is that right? -
> so I'd like his ack if possible.
>
>
> > Though it would always be good too if Jason would still like to review it.
> >
> > Jason, what's your opinion?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > --
> > Peter Xu
>
