On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 03:49:50PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 11:27:53AM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > 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?
>
> That doesn't really help, the issue is it holds the lock over the
> copy_to_user() which it is doing because it doesn't want pull the item off
> the list and then try to handle the failure and put it back.
Hmm, it seems that I haven't got your first narrative straight..
Would you mind elaborate "copy_to_user() can block while waiting
on a page fault"? When would this happen?
Thanks
Nicolin
