[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 4/4] xen/x86: Allow stubdom access to irq created for msi.
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 08:43:59PM +0100, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote: > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 11:52:21AM +0100, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 10:21:29AM +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 04:36:31PM +0100, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki > > > wrote: > > > > From: Simon Gaiser <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Stubdomains need to be given sufficient privilege over the guest which > > > > it > > > > provides emulation for in order for PCI passthrough to work correctly. > > > > When a HVM domain try to enable MSI, QEMU in stubdomain calls > > > > PHYSDEVOP_map_pirq, but later it needs to call XEN_DOMCTL_bind_pt_irq as > > > > part of xc_domain_update_msi_irq. Allow for that as part of > > > > PHYSDEVOP_map_pirq. > > > > > > I see, that's not a problem AFAICT for PCI INTx because the IRQ in > > > that case is known beforehand, and the stubdomain is given permissions > > > over this IRQ by libxl__device_pci_add (there's a do_pci_add against > > > the stubdomain). > > > > Exactly. > > > > > > > > > > Based on > > > > https://github.com/OpenXT/xenclient-oe/blob/5e0e7304a5a3c75ef01240a1e3673665b2aaf05e/recipes-extended/xen/files/stubdomain-msi-irq-access.patch > > > > by Eric Chanudet <chanudete@xxxxxxxxxxxx>. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Gaiser <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Signed-off-by: Marek Marczykowski-Górecki > > > > <marmarek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > (...) > > > > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/irq.c b/xen/arch/x86/irq.c > > > > index 8b44d6c..123ca69 100644 > > > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/irq.c > > > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/irq.c > > > > @@ -2674,6 +2674,21 @@ int allocate_and_map_msi_pirq(struct domain *d, > > > > int index, int *pirq_p, > > > > { > > > > case MAP_PIRQ_TYPE_MULTI_MSI: > > > > irq = create_irq(NUMA_NO_NODE); > > > > + if ( !(irq < nr_irqs_gsi || irq >= nr_irqs) && > > > > > > This check is already performed below, maybe you could re-arrange the > > > code as: > > > > > > case MAP_PIRQ_TYPE_MULTI_MSI: > > > irq = create_irq(NUMA_NO_NODE); > > > } > > > > > > if ( irq < nr_irqs_gsi || irq >= nr_irqs ) > > > { > > > dprintk(XENLOG_G_ERR, "dom%d: can't create irq for msi!\n", > > > d->domain_id); > > > return -EINVAL; > > > } > > > if ( current->domain->target == d ) > > > ... Oh, and this won't fly either, as irq_permit_access() should happen only when create_irq() was called, otherwise it will give access to arbitrary irq. > > > > > > But I wonder whether it would be better to place the irq_permit_access > > > in map_domain_pirq, together with the existing irq_permit_access that > > > grant the target domain permissions over the irq. > > > > That may be a good idea. Let me try that in v3. But I'll wait for a > > feedback on libxl patches first. > > That doesn't work, as map_domain_pirq() check irq access earlier. > Which bring be to a question, what should be rules guarding stubdomain > access to PHYSDEVOP_map_pirq? With this patch, stubdomain will be able > to create and map multiple irq (DoS possibility?), as only target domain > is validated in practice. Is that ok? If not, what additional limits > could be applied here? > In INTx case the problem doesn't apply, because toolstack grant access > to particular IRQ and no allocation happen on stubdomain request. But in > MSI case, it isn't that easy as IRQ number isn't known before (as > explained in the commit message). > -- Best Regards, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki Invisible Things Lab A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? Attachment:
signature.asc _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |