[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 4/5] xen/arm: optee: handle share buffer translation error



Hi Volodymyr,

On 8/23/19 7:48 PM, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
There is a case possible, when OP-TEE asks guest to allocate shared
buffer, but Xen for some reason can't translate buffer's addresses. In
this situation we should do two things:

1. Tell guest to free allocated buffer, so there will be no memory
leak for guest.

2. Tell OP-TEE that buffer allocation failed.

To ask guest to free allocated buffer we should perform the same
thing, as OP-TEE does - issue RPC request. This is done by filling
request buffer (luckily we can reuse the same buffer, that OP-TEE used
to issue original request) and then return to guest with special
return code.

Then we need to handle next call from guest in a special way: as RPC
was issued by Xen, not by OP-TEE, it should be handled by Xen.
Basically, this is the mechanism to preempt OP-TEE mediator.

The same mechanism can be used in the future to preempt mediator
during translation large (>512 pages) shared buffers.

Signed-off-by: Volodymyr Babchuk <volodymyr_babchuk@xxxxxxxx>
---
  xen/arch/arm/tee/optee.c | 167 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
  1 file changed, 136 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)

diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/tee/optee.c b/xen/arch/arm/tee/optee.c
index 3ce6e7fa55..4eebc60b62 100644
--- a/xen/arch/arm/tee/optee.c
+++ b/xen/arch/arm/tee/optee.c
@@ -96,6 +96,11 @@
                                OPTEE_SMC_SEC_CAP_UNREGISTERED_SHM | \
                                OPTEE_SMC_SEC_CAP_DYNAMIC_SHM)
+enum optee_call_state {
+    OPTEEM_CALL_NORMAL = 0,

enum always start counting at 0. Also, looking at the code, it does not seem you need to know the value. Right?

+    OPTEEM_CALL_XEN_RPC,

I am a bit confused, the enum is called optee_call_state but all the enum are prefixed with OPTEEM_CALL_. Why the discrepancy?

+};
+
  static unsigned int __read_mostly max_optee_threads;
/*
@@ -112,6 +117,9 @@ struct optee_std_call {
      paddr_t guest_arg_ipa;
      int optee_thread_id;
      int rpc_op;
+    /* Saved buffer type for the last buffer allocate request */

Looking at the code, it feels to me you are saving the buffer type for the current command and not the last. Did I miss anything?

+    unsigned int rpc_buffer_type;
+    enum optee_call_state state;
      uint64_t rpc_data_cookie;
      bool in_flight;
      register_t rpc_params[2];
@@ -299,6 +307,7 @@ static struct optee_std_call *allocate_std_call(struct 
optee_domain *ctx)
call->optee_thread_id = -1;
      call->in_flight = true;
+    call->state = OPTEEM_CALL_NORMAL;
spin_lock(&ctx->lock);
      list_add_tail(&call->list, &ctx->call_list);
@@ -1075,6 +1084,10 @@ static int handle_rpc_return(struct optee_domain *ctx,
              ret = -ERESTART;
          }
+ /* Save the buffer type in case we will want to free it */
+        if ( shm_rpc->xen_arg->cmd == OPTEE_RPC_CMD_SHM_ALLOC )
+            call->rpc_buffer_type = shm_rpc->xen_arg->params[0].u.value.a;
+
          unmap_domain_page(shm_rpc->xen_arg);
      }
@@ -1239,18 +1252,102 @@ err:
      return;
  }
+/*
+ * Prepare RPC request to free shared buffer in the same way, as
+ * OP-TEE does this.
+ *
+ * Return values:
+ *  true  - successfully prepared RPC request
+ *  false - there was an error
+ */
+static bool issue_rpc_cmd_free(struct optee_domain *ctx,
+                               struct cpu_user_regs *regs,
+                               struct optee_std_call *call,
+                               struct shm_rpc *shm_rpc,
+                               uint64_t cookie)
+{
+    register_t r1, r2;
+
+    /* In case if guest will forget to update it with meaningful value */
+    shm_rpc->xen_arg->ret = TEEC_ERROR_GENERIC;
+    shm_rpc->xen_arg->cmd = OPTEE_RPC_CMD_SHM_FREE;
+    shm_rpc->xen_arg->num_params = 1;
+    shm_rpc->xen_arg->params[0].attr = OPTEE_MSG_ATTR_TYPE_VALUE_INPUT;
+    shm_rpc->xen_arg->params[0].u.value.a = call->rpc_buffer_type;
+    shm_rpc->xen_arg->params[0].u.value.b = cookie;
+
+    if ( access_guest_memory_by_ipa(current->domain,
+                                    gfn_to_gaddr(shm_rpc->gfn),
+                                    shm_rpc->xen_arg,
+                                    OPTEE_MSG_GET_ARG_SIZE(1),
+                                    true) )
+    {
+        /*
+         * Well, this is quite bad. We have error in error path.
+         * This can happen only if guest behaves badly, so all
+         * we can do is to return error to OP-TEE and leave
+         * guest's memory leaked.

Could you expand a bit more what you mean by "guest's memory leaked"? What the state of the page from Xen PoV? I.e. is there any reference taken by the OP-TEE mediator? Will the page be freed once the guest is destroyed?...

+         */
+        shm_rpc->xen_arg->ret = TEEC_ERROR_GENERIC;
+        shm_rpc->xen_arg->num_params = 0;
+
+        return false;
+    }
+
+    uint64_to_regpair(&r1, &r2, shm_rpc->cookie);
+
+    call->state = OPTEEM_CALL_XEN_RPC;
+    call->rpc_op = OPTEE_SMC_RPC_FUNC_CMD;
+    call->rpc_params[0] = r1;
+    call->rpc_params[1] = r2;
+    call->optee_thread_id = get_user_reg(regs, 3);
+
+    set_user_reg(regs, 0, OPTEE_SMC_RETURN_RPC_CMD);
+    set_user_reg(regs, 1, r1);
+    set_user_reg(regs, 2, r2);
+
+    return true;
+}
+
+/* Handles return from Xen-issued RPC */
+static void handle_xen_rpc_return(struct optee_domain *ctx,
+                                  struct cpu_user_regs *regs,
+                                  struct optee_std_call *call,
+                                  struct shm_rpc *shm_rpc)
+{
+    call->state = OPTEEM_CALL_NORMAL;
+
+    /*
+     * Right now we have only one reason to be there - we asked guest
+     * to free shared buffer and it did it. Now we can tell OP-TEE that
+     * buffer allocation failed.
+     */

Should we add an ASSERT to ensure the command is the one we expect?

+
+    /*
+     * We are not checking return value from a guest because we assume
+     * that OPTEE_RPC_CMD_SHM_FREE newer fails.

s/newer/never/

+     */
+
+    shm_rpc->xen_arg->ret = TEEC_ERROR_GENERIC;
+    shm_rpc->xen_arg->num_params = 0;
+}
+
  /*
   * This function is called when guest is finished processing RPC
   * request from OP-TEE and wished to resume the interrupted standard
   * call.
+ *
+ * Return values:
+ *  false - there was an error, do not call OP-TEE
+ *  true  - success, proceed as normal
   */
-static void handle_rpc_cmd_alloc(struct optee_domain *ctx,
+static bool handle_rpc_cmd_alloc(struct optee_domain *ctx,
                                   struct cpu_user_regs *regs,
                                   struct optee_std_call *call,
                                   struct shm_rpc *shm_rpc)
  {
      if ( shm_rpc->xen_arg->ret || shm_rpc->xen_arg->num_params != 1 )
-        return;
+        return true;
if ( shm_rpc->xen_arg->params[0].attr != (OPTEE_MSG_ATTR_TYPE_TMEM_OUTPUT |
                                                OPTEE_MSG_ATTR_NONCONTIG) )
@@ -1258,7 +1355,7 @@ static void handle_rpc_cmd_alloc(struct optee_domain *ctx,
          gdprintk(XENLOG_WARNING,
                   "Invalid attrs for shared mem buffer: %"PRIx64"\n",
                   shm_rpc->xen_arg->params[0].attr);
-        return;
+        return true;
      }
/* Free pg list for buffer */
@@ -1274,21 +1371,14 @@ static void handle_rpc_cmd_alloc(struct optee_domain 
*ctx,
      {
          call->rpc_data_cookie = 0;
          /*
-         * Okay, so there was problem with guest's buffer and we need
-         * to tell about this to OP-TEE.
-         */
-        shm_rpc->xen_arg->ret = TEEC_ERROR_GENERIC;
-        shm_rpc->xen_arg->num_params = 0;
-        /*
-         * TODO: With current implementation, OP-TEE will not issue
-         * RPC to free this buffer. Guest and OP-TEE will be out of
-         * sync: guest believes that it provided buffer to OP-TEE,
-         * while OP-TEE thinks of opposite. Ideally, we need to
-         * emulate RPC with OPTEE_MSG_RPC_CMD_SHM_FREE command.
+         * We are unable to translate guest's buffer, so we need tell guest
+         * to free it, before returning error to OP-TEE.

Do you mean "reporting" instead of "returning"?
Also s/error/an error/

           */
-        gprintk(XENLOG_WARNING,
-                "translate_noncontig() failed, OP-TEE/guest state is out of 
sync.\n");
+        return !issue_rpc_cmd_free(ctx, regs, call, shm_rpc,
+                                   shm_rpc->xen_arg->params[0].u.tmem.shm_ref);
      }
+
+    return true;
  }
static void handle_rpc_cmd(struct optee_domain *ctx, struct cpu_user_regs *regs,
@@ -1338,22 +1428,37 @@ static void handle_rpc_cmd(struct optee_domain *ctx, 
struct cpu_user_regs *regs,
          goto out;
      }
- switch (shm_rpc->xen_arg->cmd)
+    if ( call->state == OPTEEM_CALL_NORMAL )
      {
-    case OPTEE_RPC_CMD_GET_TIME:
-    case OPTEE_RPC_CMD_WAIT_QUEUE:
-    case OPTEE_RPC_CMD_SUSPEND:
-        break;
-    case OPTEE_RPC_CMD_SHM_ALLOC:
-        handle_rpc_cmd_alloc(ctx, regs, call, shm_rpc);
-        break;
-    case OPTEE_RPC_CMD_SHM_FREE:
-        free_optee_shm_buf(ctx, shm_rpc->xen_arg->params[0].u.value.b);
-        if ( call->rpc_data_cookie == shm_rpc->xen_arg->params[0].u.value.b )
-            call->rpc_data_cookie = 0;
-        break;
-    default:
-        break;
+        switch (shm_rpc->xen_arg->cmd)
+        {
+        case OPTEE_RPC_CMD_GET_TIME:
+        case OPTEE_RPC_CMD_WAIT_QUEUE:
+        case OPTEE_RPC_CMD_SUSPEND:
+            break;
+        case OPTEE_RPC_CMD_SHM_ALLOC:
+            if ( !handle_rpc_cmd_alloc(ctx, regs, call, shm_rpc) )
+            {
+                /* We failed to translate buffer, report back to guest */
+                unmap_domain_page(shm_rpc->xen_arg);
+                put_std_call(ctx, call);
+
+                return;
+            }
+            break;
+        case OPTEE_RPC_CMD_SHM_FREE:
+            free_optee_shm_buf(ctx, shm_rpc->xen_arg->params[0].u.value.b);
+            if ( call->rpc_data_cookie ==
+                 shm_rpc->xen_arg->params[0].u.value.b )
+                call->rpc_data_cookie = 0;
+            break;
+        default:
+            break;
+        }
+    }
+    else
+    {
+        handle_xen_rpc_return(ctx, regs, call, shm_rpc);
      }
out:


Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.