On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 12:57 PM Anirudh Rayabharam <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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: > > > <TASK> > > > 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 > > > </TASK> > > > > > > Reported by syzbot at: > > > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=0abd373e2e50d704db87 > > > > > > Reported-by: syzbot+0abd373e2e50d704db87@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Tested-by: syzbot+0abd373e2e50d704db87@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Signed-off-by: Anirudh Rayabharam <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > 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. 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 > > 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 > > > > > >
