On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 13:46:37 -0800 Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Alex, > > On 2/5/2024 2:35 PM, Alex Williamson wrote: > > On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 20:57:09 -0800 > > Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > .. > > >> @@ -715,13 +724,13 @@ static int vfio_pci_set_intx_trigger(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev, > >> if (is_intx(vdev)) > >> return vfio_irq_set_block(vdev, start, count, fds, index); > >> > >> - ret = vfio_intx_enable(vdev); > >> + ret = vfio_intx_enable(vdev, start, count, index); > > > > Please trace what happens when a user calls SET_IRQS to setup a trigger > > eventfd with start = 0, count = 1, followed by any other combination of > > start and count values once is_intx() is true. vfio_intx_enable() > > cannot be the only place we bounds check the user, all of the INTx > > callbacks should be an error or nop if vector != 0. Thanks, > > > > Thank you very much for catching this. I plan to add the vector > check to the device_name() and request_interrupt() callbacks. I do > not think it is necessary to add the vector check to disable() since > it does not operate on a range and from what I can tell it depends on > a successful enable() that already contains the vector check. Similar, > free_interrupt() requires a successful request_interrupt() (that will > have vector check in next version). > send_eventfd() requires a valid interrupt context that is only > possible if enable() or request_interrupt() succeeded. Sounds reasonable. > If user space creates an eventfd with start = 0 and count = 1 > and then attempts to trigger the eventfd using another combination then > the changes in this series will result in a nop while the current > implementation will result in -EINVAL. Is this acceptable? I think by nop, you mean the ioctl returns success. Was the call a success? Thanks, Alex
