On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 00:43:15 +0530
Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 9/20/2016 12:06 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 23:52:36 +0530
> > Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/26/2016 7:43 PM, Kirti Wankhede wrote:
> >>> * PGP Signed: 08/26/2016 at 07:15:44 AM, Decrypted
> >>> On 8/25/2016 2:52 PM, Dong Jia wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 09:23:53 +0530
> >>
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +static ssize_t vfio_mdev_read(void *device_data, char __user *buf,
> >>>>> + size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + struct vfio_mdev *vmdev = device_data;
> >>>>> + struct mdev_device *mdev = vmdev->mdev;
> >>>>> + struct parent_device *parent = mdev->parent;
> >>>>> + unsigned int done = 0;
> >>>>> + int ret;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + if (!parent->ops->read)
> >>>>> + return -EINVAL;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + while (count) {
> >>>> Here, I have to say sorry to you guys for that I didn't notice the
> >>>> bad impact of this change to my patches during the v6 discussion.
> >>>>
> >>>> For vfio-ccw, I introduced an I/O region to input/output I/O
> >>>> instruction parameters and results for Qemu. The @count of these data
> >>>> currently is 140. So supporting arbitrary lengths in one shot here, and
> >>>> also in vfio_mdev_write, seems the better option for this case.
> >>>>
> >>>> I believe that if the pci drivers want to iterate in a 4 bytes step, you
> >>>> can do that in the parent read/write callbacks instead.
> >>>>
> >>>> What do you think?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I would like to know Alex's thought on this. He raised concern with this
> >>> approach in v6 reviews:
> >>> "But I think this is exploitable, it lets the user make the kernel
> >>> allocate an arbitrarily sized buffer."
> >>>
> >>
> >> Read/write callbacks are for slow path, emulation of mmio region which
> >> are mainly device registers. I do feel it shouldn't support arbitrary
> >> lengths.
> >> Alex, I would like to know your thoughts.
> >
> > The exploit was that the mdev layer allocated a buffer and copied the
> > entire user buffer into kernel space before passing it to the vendor
> > driver. The solution is to pass the __user *buf to the vendor driver
> > and let them sanitize and split it however makes sense for their
> > device. We shouldn't be assuming naturally aligned, up to dword
> > accesses in the generic mdev layers. Those sorts of semantics are
> > defined by the device type. This is another case where making
> > the mdev layer as thin as possible is actually the best thing to
> > do to make it really device type agnostic. Thanks,
> >
>
>
> Alex,
>
> These were the comments on v6 patch:
>
> >>> Do we really need to support arbitrary lengths in one shot? Seems
> >>> like
> >>> we could just use a 4 or 8 byte variable on the stack and iterate
> >>> until
> >>> done.
> >>>
> >>
> >> We just want to pass the arguments to vendor driver as is here.Vendor
> >> driver could take care of that.
>
> > But I think this is exploitable, it lets the user make the kernel
> > allocate an arbitrarily sized buffer.
>
> As per above discussion in v7 version, this module don't allocated
> memory from heap.
>
> If vendor driver allocates arbitrary memory in kernel space through mdev
> module interface, isn't that would be exploit?
Yep, my 4-8/byte chunking idea was too PCI specific. If a vendor
driver introduces an exploit, that's a bug in the vendor driver. I'm
not sure if we can or should attempt to guard against that. Ultimately
the vendor driver is either open source and we can inspect it for such
exploits or it's closed source, taints the kernel, and we hope for the
best. It might make a good unit test to perform substantially sized
reads/writes to the mdev device. Perhaps the only sanity test we can
make in the core is to verify the access doesn't exceed the size of
the region as advertised by the vendor driver. 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
