On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 11:10:01 +0100
Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 11:02:17AM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > The problem I'm addressing was discovered by the LTP test covering
> > cve-2018-1000204.
> >
> > A short description of what happens follows:
> > 1) The test case issues a command code 00 (TEST UNIT READY) via the SG_IO
> > interface with: dxfer_len == 524288, dxdfer_dir == SG_DXFER_FROM_DEV
> > and a corresponding dxferp. The peculiar thing about this is that TUR
> > is not reading from the device.
> > 2) In sg_start_req() the invocation of blk_rq_map_user() effectively
> > bounces the user-space buffer. As if the device was to transfer into
> > it. Since commit a45b599ad808 ("scsi: sg: allocate with __GFP_ZERO in
> > sg_build_indirect()") we make sure this first bounce buffer is
> > allocated with GFP_ZERO.
> > 3) For the rest of the story we keep ignoring that we have a TUR, so the
> > device won't touch the buffer we prepare as if the we had a
> > DMA_FROM_DEVICE type of situation. My setup uses a virtio-scsi device
> > and the buffer allocated by SG is mapped by the function
> > virtqueue_add_split() which uses DMA_FROM_DEVICE for the "in" sgs (here
> > scatter-gather and not scsi generics). This mapping involves bouncing
> > via the swiotlb (we need swiotlb to do virtio in protected guest like
> > s390 Secure Execution, or AMD SEV).
> > 4) When the SCSI TUR is done, we first copy back the content of the second
> > (that is swiotlb) bounce buffer (which most likely contains some
> > previous IO data), to the first bounce buffer, which contains all
> > zeros. Then we copy back the content of the first bounce buffer to
> > the user-space buffer.
> > 5) The test case detects that the buffer, which it zero-initialized,
> > ain't all zeros and fails.
> >
> > One can argue that this is an swiotlb problem, because without swiotlb
> > we leak all zeros, and the swiotlb should be transparent in a sense that
> > it does not affect the outcome (if all other participants are well
> > behaved).
> >
> > Copying the content of the original buffer into the swiotlb buffer is
> > the only way I can think of to make swiotlb transparent in such
> > scenarios. So let's do just that if in doubt, but allow the driver
> > to tell us that the whole mapped buffer is going to be overwritten,
> > in which case we can preserve the old behavior and avoid the performance
> > impact of the extra bounce.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx: resolved merge conflicts]
> > ---
> > Documentation/core-api/dma-attributes.rst | 8 ++++++++
> > include/linux/dma-mapping.h | 8 ++++++++
> > kernel/dma/swiotlb.c | 3 ++-
> > 3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> What is the git commit id of this patch in Linus's tree?
ddbd89deb7d3 ("swiotlb: fix info leak with DMA_FROM_DEVICE")
What is the best way to state the original commit id for backports? I
used the cover letter this time, but it does not seem to be the right
choice.
