Re: [PATCH] vhost: validate range size before adding to iotlb

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 07:48:18PM +0530, Anirudh Rayabharam wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 06:21:50PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 10:57:41PM +0530, Anirudh Rayabharam wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 10:02:29AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 03:11:07PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 12:57 PM Anirudh Rayabharam <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 10:50:20AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 3:53 AM Anirudh Rayabharam <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In vhost_iotlb_add_range_ctx(), validate the range size is non-zero
> > > > > > > > before proceeding with adding it to the iotlb.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Range size can overflow to 0 when start is 0 and last is (2^64 - 1).
> > > > > > > > One instance where it can happen is when userspace sends an IOTLB
> > > > > > > > message with iova=size=uaddr=0 (vhost_process_iotlb_msg). So, an
> > > > > > > > entry with size = 0, start = 0, last = (2^64 - 1) ends up in the
> > > > > > > > iotlb. Next time a packet is sent, iotlb_access_ok() loops
> > > > > > > > indefinitely due to that erroneous entry:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >         Call Trace:
> > > > > > > >          <TASK>
> > > > > > > >          iotlb_access_ok+0x21b/0x3e0 drivers/vhost/vhost.c:1340
> > > > > > > >          vq_meta_prefetch+0xbc/0x280 drivers/vhost/vhost.c:1366
> > > > > > > >          vhost_transport_do_send_pkt+0xe0/0xfd0 drivers/vhost/vsock.c:104
> > > > > > > >          vhost_worker+0x23d/0x3d0 drivers/vhost/vhost.c:372
> > > > > > > >          kthread+0x2e9/0x3a0 kernel/kthread.c:377
> > > > > > > >          ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:295
> > > > > > > >          </TASK>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Reported by syzbot at:
> > > > > > > >         https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=0abd373e2e50d704db87
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Reported-by: syzbot+0abd373e2e50d704db87@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > > Tested-by: syzbot+0abd373e2e50d704db87@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Anirudh Rayabharam <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > >  drivers/vhost/iotlb.c | 6 ++++--
> > > > > > > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/iotlb.c b/drivers/vhost/iotlb.c
> > > > > > > > index 670d56c879e5..b9de74bd2f9c 100644
> > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/vhost/iotlb.c
> > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/vhost/iotlb.c
> > > > > > > > @@ -53,8 +53,10 @@ int vhost_iotlb_add_range_ctx(struct vhost_iotlb *iotlb,
> > > > > > > >                               void *opaque)
> > > > > > > >  {
> > > > > > > >         struct vhost_iotlb_map *map;
> > > > > > > > +       u64 size = last - start + 1;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -       if (last < start)
> > > > > > > > +       // size can overflow to 0 when start is 0 and last is (2^64 - 1).
> > > > > > > > +       if (last < start || size == 0)
> > > > > > > >                 return -EFAULT;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd move this check to vhost_chr_iter_write(), then for the device who
> > > > > > > has its own msg handler (e.g vDPA) can benefit from it as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for reviewing!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I kept the check here thinking that all devices would benefit from it
> > > > > > because they would need to call vhost_iotlb_add_range() to add an entry
> > > > > > to the iotlb. Isn't that correct?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Correct for now but not for the future, it's not guaranteed that the
> > > > > per device iotlb message handler will use vhost iotlb.
> > > > > 
> > > > > But I agree that we probably don't need to care about it too much now.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Do you see any other benefit in moving
> > > > > > it to vhost_chr_iter_write()?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One concern I have is that if we move it out some future caller to
> > > > > > vhost_iotlb_add_range() might forget to handle this case.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yes.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Rethink the whole fix, we're basically rejecting [0, ULONG_MAX] range
> > > > > which seems a little bit odd.
> > > > 
> > > > Well, I guess ideally we'd split this up as two entries - this kind of
> > > > thing is after all one of the reasons we initially used first,last as
> > > > the API - as opposed to first,size.
> > > 
> > > IIUC, the APIs exposed to userspace accept first,size.
> > 
> > Some of them.
> > 
> > 
> > /* vhost vdpa IOVA range
> >  * @first: First address that can be mapped by vhost-vDPA
> >  * @last: Last address that can be mapped by vhost-vDPA
> >  */
> > struct vhost_vdpa_iova_range {
> >         __u64 first;
> >         __u64 last;
> > };
> 
> Alright, I will split it into two entries. That doesn't fully address
> the bug though. I would also need to validate size in vhost_chr_iter_write().

Do you mean vhost_chr_write_iter?

> 
> Should I do both in one patch or as a two patch series?

I'm not sure why we need to do validation in vhost_chr_iter_write,
hard to say without seeing the patch.

> > 
> > but
> > 
> > struct vhost_iotlb_msg {
> >         __u64 iova;
> >         __u64 size;
> >         __u64 uaddr;
> > #define VHOST_ACCESS_RO      0x1
> > #define VHOST_ACCESS_WO      0x2
> > #define VHOST_ACCESS_RW      0x3
> >         __u8 perm;
> > #define VHOST_IOTLB_MISS           1
> > #define VHOST_IOTLB_UPDATE         2
> > #define VHOST_IOTLB_INVALIDATE     3
> > #define VHOST_IOTLB_ACCESS_FAIL    4
> > /*
> >  * VHOST_IOTLB_BATCH_BEGIN and VHOST_IOTLB_BATCH_END allow modifying
> >  * multiple mappings in one go: beginning with
> >  * VHOST_IOTLB_BATCH_BEGIN, followed by any number of
> >  * VHOST_IOTLB_UPDATE messages, and ending with VHOST_IOTLB_BATCH_END.
> >  * When one of these two values is used as the message type, the rest
> >  * of the fields in the message are ignored. There's no guarantee that
> >  * these changes take place automatically in the device.
> >  */
> > #define VHOST_IOTLB_BATCH_BEGIN    5
> > #define VHOST_IOTLB_BATCH_END      6
> >         __u8 type;
> > };
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > Which means that
> > > right now there is now way for userspace to map this range. So, is there
> > > any value in not simply rejecting this range?
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Anirudh, could you do it like this instead of rejecting?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > I wonder if it's better to just remove
> > > > > the map->size. Having a quick glance at the the user, I don't see any
> > > > > blocker for this.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > 
> > > > I think it's possible but won't solve the bug by itself, and we'd need
> > > > to review and fix all users - a high chance of introducing
> > > > another regression. 
> > > 
> > > Agreed, I did a quick review of the usages and getting rid of size
> > > didn't seem trivial.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > 
> > > 	- Anirudh.
> > > 
> > > > And I think there's value of fitting under the
> > > > stable rule of 100 lines with context.
> > > > So sure, but let's fix the bug first.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >         - Anirudh.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >         if (iotlb->limit &&
> > > > > > > > @@ -69,7 +71,7 @@ int vhost_iotlb_add_range_ctx(struct vhost_iotlb *iotlb,
> > > > > > > >                 return -ENOMEM;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >         map->start = start;
> > > > > > > > -       map->size = last - start + 1;
> > > > > > > > +       map->size = size;
> > > > > > > >         map->last = last;
> > > > > > > >         map->addr = addr;
> > > > > > > >         map->perm = perm;
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > 2.35.1
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > 
> >