Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] xen/blkfront: don't trust the backend response data
 blindly
To:     Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
Cc:     Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=c3=a9?= <roger.pau@citrix.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20210513100302.22027-1-jgross@suse.com>
 <20210513100302.22027-5-jgross@suse.com>
 <315ad8b9-8a98-8d3e-f66c-ab32af2731a8@suse.com>
 <6095c4b9-a9bb-8a38-fb6c-a5483105b802@suse.com>
From:   Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Message-ID: <a19a13ba-a386-2808-ad85-338d47085fa6@suse.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 May 2021 17:12:12 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.10.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6095c4b9-a9bb-8a38-fb6c-a5483105b802@suse.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 17.05.2021 16:23, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 17.05.21 16:11, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 13.05.2021 12:02, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> @@ -1574,10 +1580,16 @@ static irqreturn_t blkif_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id)
>>>   	spin_lock_irqsave(&rinfo->ring_lock, flags);
>>>    again:
>>>   	rp = rinfo->ring.sring->rsp_prod;
>>> +	if (RING_RESPONSE_PROD_OVERFLOW(&rinfo->ring, rp)) {
>>> +		pr_alert("%s: illegal number of responses %u\n",
>>> +			 info->gd->disk_name, rp - rinfo->ring.rsp_cons);
>>> +		goto err;
>>> +	}
>>>   	rmb(); /* Ensure we see queued responses up to 'rp'. */
>>
>> I think you want to insert after the barrier.
> 
> Why? The relevant variable which is checked is "rp". The result of the
> check is in no way depending on the responses themselves. And any change
> of rsp_cons is protected by ring_lock, so there is no possibility of
> reading an old value here.

But this is a standard double read situation: You might check a value
and then (via a separate read) use a different one past the barrier.

Jan