On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 01:48:42PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 09:10:09AM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
>
> > +static ssize_t iommufd_veventq_fops_read(struct iommufd_eventq *eventq,
> > + char __user *buf, size_t count,
> > + loff_t *ppos)
> > +{
> > + size_t done = 0;
> > + int rc = 0;
> > +
> > + if (*ppos)
> > + return -ESPIPE;
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&eventq->mutex);
> > + while (!list_empty(&eventq->deliver) && count > done) {
> > + struct iommufd_vevent *cur = list_first_entry(
> > + &eventq->deliver, struct iommufd_vevent, node);
> > +
> > + if (cur->data_len > count - done)
> > + break;
> > +
> > + if (copy_to_user(buf + done, cur->event_data, cur->data_len)) {
> > + rc = -EFAULT;
> > + break;
> > + }
>
> Now that I look at this more closely, the fault path this is copied
> from is not great.
>
> This copy_to_user() can block while waiting on a page fault, possibily
> for a long time. While blocked the mutex is held and we can't add more
> entries to the list.
>
> That will cause the shared IRQ handler in the iommu driver to back up,
> which would cause a global DOS.
>
> This probably wants to be organized to look more like
>
> while (itm = eventq_get_next_item(eventq)) {
> if (..) {
> eventq_restore_failed_item(eventq);
> return -1;
> }
> }
>
> Where the next_item would just be a simple spinlock across the linked
> list manipulation.
Would it be simpler by just limiting one node per read(), i.e.
no "while (!list_empty)" and no block?
The report() adds one node at a time, and wakes up the poll()
each time of adding a node. And user space could read one event
at a time too?
Thanks
Nicolin
