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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20211012065227.9953-1-jasowang@redhat.com> <20211012065227.9953-2-jasowang@redhat.com>
 <20211013060341-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <CACGkMEvJ76EBtx847HodDmoLDkz7QjFoJMBdgGTEeEoZ8W-9Sw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20211014014210-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20211014014210-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Oct 2021 14:23:29 +0800
Message-ID: <CACGkMEspr-TXYb4ZuC6Dm1-nJcN5D69vFdFzjPvxZv9hupVo5g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 01/12] virtio-blk: validate num_queues during probe
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc:     virtualization <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Hetzelt, Felicitas" <f.hetzelt@tu-berlin.de>,
        "kaplan, david" <david.kaplan@amd.com>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>,
        Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 1:45 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 10:32:32AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 6:04 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 02:52:16PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > If an untrusted device neogitates BLK_F_MQ but advertises a zero
> > > > num_queues, the driver may end up trying to allocating zero size
> > > > buffers where ZERO_SIZE_PTR is returned which may pass the checking
> > > > against the NULL. This will lead unexpected results.
> > > >
> > > > Fixing this by using single queue if num_queues is zero.
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
> > >
> > > I'd rather fail probe so we don't need to support that.
> >
> > I think we should be consistent among all virtio drivers.
>
> Well we started being permissive. We can't change that
> since that might break on some hosts. But given focus on
> security being restrictive sounds better now.

Right.

>
> > E.g without this patch, we stick to 1 if virtio_create_feature() fail.
> > Do we need to fix that?
>
> We can't easily, some hosts might be broken.

Ok.

Thanks

>
> > And we do something similar at least for the virtio-net and a lot of
> > other places.
> >
> >         /* We need at least 2 queue's */
> >         if (err || max_queue_pairs < VIRTIO_NET_CTRL_MQ_VQ_PAIRS_MIN ||
> >             max_queue_pairs > VIRTIO_NET_CTRL_MQ_VQ_PAIRS_MAX ||
> >             !virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_CTRL_VQ))
> >                 max_queue_pairs = 1;
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > >
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/block/virtio_blk.c | 3 ++-
> > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > > > index 9b3bd083b411..9deff01a38cb 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > > > @@ -495,7 +495,8 @@ static int init_vq(struct virtio_blk *vblk)
> > > >       err = virtio_cread_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_BLK_F_MQ,
> > > >                                  struct virtio_blk_config, num_queues,
> > > >                                  &num_vqs);
> > > > -     if (err)
> > > > +     /* We need at least one virtqueue */
> > > > +     if (err || !num_vqs)
> > > >               num_vqs = 1;
> > > >
> > > >       num_vqs = min_t(unsigned int, nr_cpu_ids, num_vqs);
> > > > --
> > > > 2.25.1
> > >
>