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

Re: [PATCH] xen/hypfs: fix writing of custom parameter



On 11.09.20 16:02, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 11/09/2020 13:28, Jürgen Groß wrote:
On 11.09.20 14:14, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 11/09/2020 06:30, Juergen Gross wrote:
Today the maximum allowed data length for writing a hypfs node is
tested in the generic hypfs_write() function. For custom runtime
parameters this might be wrong, as the maximum allowed size is derived
from the buffer holding the current setting, while there might be ways
to set the parameter needing more characters than the minimal
representation of that value.

One example for this is the "ept" parameter. Its value buffer is sized
to be able to hold the string "exec-sp=0" or "exec-sp=1", while it is
allowed to use e.g. "no-exec-sp" or "exec-sp=yes" for setting it.

If you're looking for silly examples, exec-sp=disabled is also legal
boolean notation for Xen.


Fix that by moving the length check one level down to the type
specific write function.

In order to avoid allocation of arbitrary sized buffers use a new
MAX_PARAM_SIZE macro as an upper limit for custom writes. The value
of MAX_PARAM_SIZE is the same as the limit in parse_params() for a
single parameter.

Fixes: 5b5ccafb0c42 ("xen: add basic hypervisor filesystem support")
Reported-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>

This does fix my bug, so Tested-by: Andrew Cooper
<andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>

This does need backporting to 4.14, so maybe is best to take in this
form for now.

However, I'm rather uneasy about the approach.

Everything here derives from command line semantics, and it's probably
not going to be long until we get runtime modification of two sub
parameters.

In a theoretical world where all the EPT suboptions were runtime
modifiable, it would be legal to try and pass

ept=exec-sp,pml,no-pml,no-ad,ad,no-ad

Correct.

While being fairly nonsensical, it is well formed on the command line.
We go left to right, and latest takes precedence.

Yes.

Given that we do have buffer containing everything provided by
userspace, and all internal logic organised with const char *, why do we
need an intermediate allocation at all?

Which intermediate allocation?

Sorry.  Intermediate buffer.


Can't we just pass that all the way down, rather than leaving the same
bug to hit at some point when we do have a parameter which legitimately
takes 128 characters of configuration?

The problem is we can't just set the current value with the string
passed in from the user.

Why ever not?  It is parsed as per the command line, not taken
verbatim.  It has no bearing on size of the output buffer.

We have a user area copied to the hypervisor buffer. This buffer is then
parsed like the command line and the result is stored in the internal
variables of the hypervisor (e.g. as boolean, int, multiple variables,
what ever).

Then a static buffer is filled with a textual representation reflecting
the internal variable values in order to have a complete picture of the
current setting of the param.

So what do you want to do differently here?



Imagine above example with ept, just two calls with:

ept=exec-sp
ept=no-pml

Your idea is to return only no-pml, while the truth would be
exec-sp=1,pml=0 (in the notation produced by the current code).

In this example,

The semantic gap is that "xenhypfs cat /params/ept" doesn't mean "tell
me what the user (last?) put on the command line for ept=".  It means
"tell me the current state of the ept= runtime options".

Right.


I agree that reading it should always return something of the form
exec-sp=X,pml=Y.

However, writing it should not require the user to provide both in one
go.  Its a horrible (and racy) interface when you only want to change
one of the options.

Right again.


Specifically, the following should work:

# xenhypfs cat /params/ept
exec-sp=A,pml=B
# xenhypfs write /params/ept exec-sp=C
# xenhypfs cat /params/ept
exec-sp=C,pml=B
# xenhypfs write /params/ept pml=D
# xenhypfs cat /params/ept
exec-sp=C,pml=D

And the current design is to achieve exactly this behavior.


~Andrew

P.S. What stability guarantees have we made about the structure layout?
Didn't we agree that a top level /params/ wasn't necessarily the best
hierarchy to turn into an ABI.

I can't remember having seen such a remark.


Juergen



 


Rackspace

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