On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 14:00:10 +0100
Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 19:25:49 +0100
> Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 18:50:20 +0100
> > Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > A queue with a capacity of zero is clearly not a valid virtio queue.
> > > Some emulators report zero queue size if queried with an invalid queue
> > > index. Instead of crashing in this case let us just return -EINVAL. To
> > > make that work properly, let us fix the notifier cleanup logic as well.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > This patch is motivated by commit 86a5597 "virtio-balloon:
> > > VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_FREE_PAGE_HINT" (Wei Wang, 2018-08-27) which triggered
> > > the described scenario. The emulator in question is the current QEMU.
> > > The problem we run into is the underflow in the following loop
> > > in __vring_new_virtqueue():
> > > for (i = 0; i < vring.num-1; i++)
> > > vq->vring.desc[i].next = cpu_to_virtio16(vdev, i + 1)
> > > Namely vring.num is an unsigned int.
> > >
> > > RFC because I'm not sure about -EINVAL being a good choice, and about
> > > us caring about what happens if a virtio driver misbehaves like described.
> >
> > For virtio-pci, the spec says that a zero queue size means that the
> > queue is unavailable. I don't think we have specified that explicitly
> > for virtio-ccw, but it does make sense.
> >
> > virtio-pci returns -ENOENT in that case, which might be a good choice
> > here as well.
>
> virtio-mmio does the same. I will change it to -ENOENT. Maybe also do
> something like
> int virtio_ccw_read_vq_conf() {
> [..]
> return vcdev->config_block->num ?: -ENOENT;
> }
>
> instead of the extra if statement, or?
Yes, why not.
>
> >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c | 6 ++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c
> > > index fc9dbad476c0..147927ed4fca 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c
> > > @@ -272,6 +272,8 @@ static void virtio_ccw_drop_indicators(struct virtio_ccw_device *vcdev)
> > > {
> > > struct virtio_ccw_vq_info *info;
> > >
> > > + if (!vcdev->airq_info)
> > > + return;
> >
> > Which case is this guarding against? names[i] was NULL for every index?
> >
>
> Consider:
> static int virtio_ccw_find_vqs(struct virtio_device *vdev, unsigned nvqs,
> struct virtqueue *vqs[],
> vq_callback_t *callbacks[],
> const char * const names[],
> const bool *ctx,
> struct irq_affinity *desc)
> {
> struct virtio_ccw_device *vcdev = to_vc_device(vdev);
> unsigned long *indicatorp = NULL;
> int ret, i;
> struct ccw1 *ccw;
>
> ccw = kzalloc(sizeof(*ccw), GFP_DMA | GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!ccw)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> for (i = 0; i < nvqs; ++i) {
> vqs[i] = virtio_ccw_setup_vq(vdev, i, callbacks[i], names[i],
> ctx ? ctx[i] : false, ccw);
> if (IS_ERR(vqs[i])) {
> ret = PTR_ERR(vqs[i]);
> vqs[i] = NULL;
> goto out;
> }
> }
> [..]
> if (vcdev->is_thinint) {
> ret = virtio_ccw_register_adapter_ind(vcdev, vqs, nvqs, ccw);
> if (ret)
> /* no error, just fall back to legacy interrupts */
> vcdev->is_thinint = false;
> }
> [..]
> out:
> kfree(indicatorp);
> kfree(ccw);
> virtio_ccw_del_vqs(vdev);
> return ret;
> }
> when the loop that calls virtio_ccw_setup_vq() fails after a couple
> of iterations. We end up with some queues in vcdev->virtqueues but
> with virtio_ccw_register_adapter_ind() never called and thus with
> vcdev->airq_info never set. So when virtio_ccw_del_vqs() tries to clean
> up we get an invalid pointer dereference.
>
> Does that answer your question?
Yes, thanks.
>
> I don't quite get your comments about names[i] == NULL.
I was looking at a tree with "virtio: don't allocate vqs when names[i]
= NULL" applied :)
