lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH V3] virtio: disable notification hardening by default
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 03:02:21PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 2:31 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 12:07:11PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 2:17 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 1:00 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 11:49:12AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > > > Heh. Yea sure. But things work fine for people. What is the chance
> > > > > > > your review found and fixed all driver bugs?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't/can't audit all bugs but the race between open/close against
> > > > > > ready/reset. It looks to me a good chance to fix them all but if you
> > > > > > think differently, let me know
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > After two attempts
> > > > > > > I don't feel like hoping audit will fix all bugs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've started the auditing and have 15+ patches in the queue. (only
> > > > > > covers bluetooth, console, pmem, virtio-net and caif). Spotting the
> > > > > > issue is not hard but the testing, It would take at least the time of
> > > > > > one release to finalize I guess.
> > > > >
> > > > > Absolutely. So I am looking for a way to implement hardening that does
> > > > > not break existing drivers.
> > > >
> > > > I totally agree with you to seek a way without bothering the drivers.
> > > > Just wonder if this is possbile.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The reason config was kind of easy is that config interrupt is rarely
> > > > > > > > > vital for device function so arbitrarily deferring that does not lead to
> > > > > > > > > deadlocks - what you are trying to do with VQ interrupts is
> > > > > > > > > fundamentally different. Things are especially bad if we just drop
> > > > > > > > > an interrupt but deferring can lead to problems too.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm not sure I see the difference, disable_irq() stuffs also delay the
> > > > > > > > interrupt processing until enable_irq().
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Absolutely. I am not at all sure disable_irq fixes all problems.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Consider as an example
> > > > > > > > > virtio-net: fix race between ndo_open() and virtio_device_ready()
> > > > > > > > > if you just defer vq interrupts you get deadlocks.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't see a deadlock here, maybe you can show more detail on this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What I mean is this: if we revert the above commit, things still
> > > > > > > work (out of spec, but still). If we revert and defer interrupts until
> > > > > > > device ready then ndo_open that triggers before device ready deadlocks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ok, I guess you meant on a hypervisor that is strictly written with spec.
> > > > >
> > > > > I mean on hypervisor that starts processing queues after getting a kick
> > > > > even without DRIVER_OK.
> > > >
> > > > Oh right.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, thinking about all this, how about a simple per vq flag meaning
> > > > > > > > > "this vq was kicked since reset"?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And ignore the notification if vq is not kicked? It sounds like the
> > > > > > > > callback needs to be synchronized with the kick.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Note we only need to synchronize it when it changes, which is
> > > > > > > only during initialization and reset.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If driver does not kick then it's not ready to get callbacks, right?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Sounds quite clean, but we need to think through memory ordering
> > > > > > > > > concerns - I guess it's only when we change the value so
> > > > > > > > > if (!vq->kicked) {
> > > > > > > > > vq->kicked = true;
> > > > > > > > > mb();
> > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > will do the trick, right?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There's no much difference with the existing approach:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1) your proposal implicitly makes callbacks ready in virtqueue_kick()
> > > > > > > > 2) my proposal explicitly makes callbacks ready via virtio_device_ready()
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Both require careful auditing of all the existing drivers to make sure
> > > > > > > > no kick before DRIVER_OK.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jason, kick before DRIVER_OK is out of spec, sure. But it is unrelated
> > > > > > > to hardening
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes but with your proposal, it seems to couple kick with DRIVER_OK somehow.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see how - my proposal ignores DRIVER_OK issues.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, what I meant is, in your proposal, the first kick after rest is a
> > > > hint that the driver is ok (but actually it could not).
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > and in absence of config interrupts is generally easily
> > > > > > > fixed just by sticking virtio_device_ready early in initialization.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So if the kick is done before the subsystem registration, there's
> > > > > > still a window in the middle (assuming we stick virtio_device_ready()
> > > > > > early):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > virtio_device_ready()
> > > > > > virtqueue_kick()
> > > > > > /* the window */
> > > > > > subsystem_registration()
> > > > >
> > > > > Absolutely, however, I do not think we really have many such drivers
> > > > > since this has been known as a wrong thing to do since the beginning.
> > > > > Want to try to find any?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, let me try and update.
> > >
> > > This is basically the device that have an RX queue, so I've found the
> > > following drivers:
> > >
> > > scmi, mac80211_hwsim, vsock, bt, balloon.
> >
> > Looked and I don't see it yet. Let's consider
> > ./net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c for example. Assuming we block
> > callbacks until the first kick, what is the issue with probe exactly?
>
> We need to make sure the callback can survive when it runs before sub
> system registration.

With my proposal no - only if we also kick before registration.
So I do not see the issue yet.

Consider ./net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c

kicks: virtio_transport_send_pkt_work,
virtio_vsock_rx_fill, virtio_vsock_event_fill

which of these triggers before we are ready to
handle callbacks?


> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > >I couldn't ... except maybe bluetooth
> > > > > but that's just maintainer nacking fixes saying he'll fix it
> > > > > his way ...
> > > > >
> > > > > > And during remove(), we get another window:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > subsysrem_unregistration()
> > > > > > /* the window */
> > > > > > virtio_device_reset()
> > > > >
> > > > > Same here.
> > >
> > > Basically for the drivers that set driver_ok before registration,
> >
> > I don't see what does driver_ok have to do with it.
>
> I meant for those driver, in probe they do()
>
> virtio_device_ready()
> subsystem_register()
>
> In remove() they do
>
> subsystem_unregister()
> virtio_device_reset()
>
> for symmetry

Let's leave remove alone for now. I am close to 100% sure we have *lots*
of issues around it, but while probe is unavoidable remove can be
avoided by blocking hotplug.


> >
> > > so
> > > we have a lot:
> > >
> > > blk, net, mac80211_hwsim, scsi, vsock, bt, crypto, gpio, gpu, i2c,
> > > iommu, caif, pmem, input, mem
> > >
> > > So I think there's no easy way to harden the notification without
> > > auditing the driver one by one (especially considering the driver may
> > > use bh or workqueue). The problem is the notification hardening
> > > depends on a correct or race-free probe/remove. So we need to fix the
> > > issues in probe/remove then do the hardening on the notification.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> >
> > So if drivers kick but are not ready to get callbacks then let's fix
> > that first of all, these are racy with existing qemu even ignoring
> > spec compliance.
>
> Yes, (the patches I've posted so far exist even with a well-behaved device).
>
> Thanks

patches you posted deal with DRIVER_OK spec compliance.
I do not see patches for kicks before callbacks are ready to run.

> >
> >
> > --
> > MST
> >

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-06-29 09:16    [W:0.111 / U:0.996 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site