[PATCH] vfio: pci: fix oops in case of vfio_msi_set_vector_signal failure
Eric Auger
eric.auger at linaro.org
Mon Feb 1 09:27:33 PST 2016
Hi Alex,
On 01/29/2016 10:41 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-01-29 at 14:43 +0000, Eric Auger wrote:
>> In case vfio_msi_set_vector_signal fails we tear down everything.
>> In the tear down loop we compare int j against unsigned start. Given
>> the arithmetic conversion I think it is converted into an unsigned and
>> becomes 0xffffffff, leading to the loop being entered again and things
>> turn bad when accessing vdev->msix[vector].vector. So let's use int
>> parameters instead.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger at linaro.org>
>> ---
>> drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_intrs.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_intrs.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_intrs.c
>> index 3b3ba15..510c48d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_intrs.c
>> +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_intrs.c
>> @@ -374,8 +374,8 @@ static int vfio_msi_set_vector_signal(struct vfio_pci_device *vdev,
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> -static int vfio_msi_set_block(struct vfio_pci_device *vdev, unsigned start,
>> - unsigned count, int32_t *fds, bool msix)
>> +static int vfio_msi_set_block(struct vfio_pci_device *vdev, int start,
>> + int count, int32_t *fds, bool msix)
>> {
>> int i, j, ret = 0;
>>
>
> Nice find, I don't think that's the only bug there though. If @start is
> -1 (UINT32_MAX) and @count is 1, then @j gets set to -1 in the setup and
> we hit the same index dereference problem. What if we did this instead:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_intrs.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_intrs.c
> index 3b3ba15..2ae84ad 100644
> --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_intrs.c
> +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_intrs.c
> @@ -309,14 +309,14 @@ static int vfio_msi_set_vector_signal(struct vfio_pci_device *vdev,
> int vector, int fd, bool msix)
> {
> struct pci_dev *pdev = vdev->pdev;
> - int irq = msix ? vdev->msix[vector].vector : pdev->irq + vector;
> - char *name = msix ? "vfio-msix" : "vfio-msi";
> struct eventfd_ctx *trigger;
> - int ret;
> + int irq, ret;
>
> - if (vector >= vdev->num_ctx)
> + if (vector < 0 || vector >= vdev->num_ctx)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> + irq = msix ? vdev->msix[vector].vector : pdev->irq + vector;
> +
> if (vdev->ctx[vector].trigger) {
> free_irq(irq, vdev->ctx[vector].trigger);
> irq_bypass_unregister_producer(&vdev->ctx[vector].producer);
> @@ -328,8 +328,9 @@ static int vfio_msi_set_vector_signal(struct vfio_pci_device *vdev,
> if (fd < 0)
> return 0;
>
> - vdev->ctx[vector].name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "%s[%d](%s)",
> - name, vector, pci_name(pdev));
> + vdev->ctx[vector].name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "vfio-msi%s[%d](%s)",
> + msix ? "x" : "", vector,
> + pci_name(pdev));
> if (!vdev->ctx[vector].name)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> @@ -379,7 +380,7 @@ static int vfio_msi_set_block(struct vfio_pci_device *vdev, unsigned start,
> {
> int i, j, ret = 0;
>
> - if (start + count > vdev->num_ctx)
> + if (start >= vdev->num_ctx || start + count > vdev->num_ctx)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> for (i = 0, j = start; i < count && !ret; i++, j++) {
> @@ -388,7 +389,7 @@ static int vfio_msi_set_block(struct vfio_pci_device *vdev, unsigned start,
> }
>
> if (ret) {
> - for (--j; j >= start; j--)
> + for (--j; j >= 0 && j >= start; j--)
> vfio_msi_set_vector_signal(vdev, j, -1, msix);
> }
>
>
> So we fix the problem with vfio_msi_set_vector_signal() dereferencing
> the array before it validates the index (even though it shouldn't be
> able to get there anymore), and then we do a better job of verifying
> start and count (comparing to num_ctx will use unsigned even though
> num_ctx itself is signed) and finally explicitly test the <0 case, which
> I suppose we could also do by casting start at that point (we know it's
> within the bounds of a signed integer given the previous tests).
Yes it looks OK to me.
I guess you submit? I will test it.
Best Regards
Eric
> Thanks,
>
> Alex
>
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list