On Wed, 2015-10-28 at 13:12 +0000, Eric Auger wrote:
> Current vfio_pgsize_bitmap code hides the supported IOMMU page
> sizes smaller than PAGE_SIZE. As a result, in case the IOMMU
> does not support PAGE_SIZE page, the alignment check on map/unmap
> is done with larger page sizes, if any. This can fail although
> mapping could be done with pages smaller than PAGE_SIZE.
>
> vfio_pgsize_bitmap is modified to expose the IOMMU page sizes,
> supported by all domains, even those smaller than PAGE_SIZE. The
> alignment check on map is performed against PAGE_SIZE if the minimum
> IOMMU size is less than PAGE_SIZE or against the min page size greater
> than PAGE_SIZE.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> ---
>
> This was tested on AMD Seattle with 64kB page host. ARM MMU 401
> currently expose 4kB, 2MB and 1GB page support. With a 64kB page host,
> the map/unmap check is done against 2MB. Some alignment check fail
> so VFIO_IOMMU_MAP_DMA fail while we could map using 4kB IOMMU page
> size.
> ---
> drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c | 25 +++++++++++--------------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> index 57d8c37..13fb974 100644
> --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> @@ -403,7 +403,7 @@ static void vfio_remove_dma(struct vfio_iommu *iommu, struct vfio_dma *dma)
> static unsigned long vfio_pgsize_bitmap(struct vfio_iommu *iommu)
> {
> struct vfio_domain *domain;
> - unsigned long bitmap = PAGE_MASK;
> + unsigned long bitmap = ULONG_MAX;
Isn't this and removing the WARN_ON()s the only real change in this
patch? The rest looks like conversion to use IS_ALIGNED and the
following test, that I don't really understand...
>
> mutex_lock(&iommu->lock);
> list_for_each_entry(domain, &iommu->domain_list, next)
> @@ -416,20 +416,18 @@ static unsigned long vfio_pgsize_bitmap(struct vfio_iommu *iommu)
> static int vfio_dma_do_unmap(struct vfio_iommu *iommu,
> struct vfio_iommu_type1_dma_unmap *unmap)
> {
> - uint64_t mask;
> struct vfio_dma *dma;
> size_t unmapped = 0;
> int ret = 0;
> + unsigned int min_pagesz = __ffs(vfio_pgsize_bitmap(iommu));
> + unsigned int requested_alignment = (min_pagesz < PAGE_SIZE) ?
> + PAGE_SIZE : min_pagesz;
This one. If we're going to support sub-PAGE_SIZE mappings, why do we
care to cap alignment at PAGE_SIZE?
> - mask = ((uint64_t)1 << __ffs(vfio_pgsize_bitmap(iommu))) - 1;
> -
> - if (unmap->iova & mask)
> + if (!IS_ALIGNED(unmap->iova, requested_alignment))
> return -EINVAL;
> - if (!unmap->size || unmap->size & mask)
> + if (!unmap->size || !IS_ALIGNED(unmap->size, requested_alignment))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> - WARN_ON(mask & PAGE_MASK);
> -
> mutex_lock(&iommu->lock);
>
> /*
> @@ -553,25 +551,24 @@ static int vfio_dma_do_map(struct vfio_iommu *iommu,
> size_t size = map->size;
> long npage;
> int ret = 0, prot = 0;
> - uint64_t mask;
> struct vfio_dma *dma;
> unsigned long pfn;
> + unsigned int min_pagesz = __ffs(vfio_pgsize_bitmap(iommu));
> + unsigned int requested_alignment = (min_pagesz < PAGE_SIZE) ?
> + PAGE_SIZE : min_pagesz;
>
> /* Verify that none of our __u64 fields overflow */
> if (map->size != size || map->vaddr != vaddr || map->iova != iova)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> - mask = ((uint64_t)1 << __ffs(vfio_pgsize_bitmap(iommu))) - 1;
> -
> - WARN_ON(mask & PAGE_MASK);
> -
> /* READ/WRITE from device perspective */
> if (map->flags & VFIO_DMA_MAP_FLAG_WRITE)
> prot |= IOMMU_WRITE;
> if (map->flags & VFIO_DMA_MAP_FLAG_READ)
> prot |= IOMMU_READ;
>
> - if (!prot || !size || (size | iova | vaddr) & mask)
> + if (!prot || !size ||
> + !IS_ALIGNED(size | iova | vaddr, requested_alignment))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> /* Don't allow IOVA or virtual address wrap */
This is mostly ignoring the problems with sub-PAGE_SIZE mappings. For
instance, we can only pin on PAGE_SIZE and therefore we only do
accounting on PAGE_SIZE, so if the user does 4K mappings across your 64K
page, that page gets pinned and accounted 16 times. Are we going to
tell users that their locked memory limit needs to be 16x now? The rest
of the code would need an audit as well to see what other sub-page bugs
might be hiding. Thanks,
Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
