Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-Jun-29 06:31 UTC
[PATCH V3] virtio: disable notification hardening by default
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 12:07:11PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 2:17 PM Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 1:00 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 11:49:12AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > Heh. Yea sure. But things work fine for people. What is the chance > > > > > your review found and fixed all driver bugs? > > > > > > > > I don't/can't audit all bugs but the race between open/close against > > > > ready/reset. It looks to me a good chance to fix them all but if you > > > > think differently, let me know > > > > > > > > > After two attempts > > > > > I don't feel like hoping audit will fix all bugs. > > > > > > > > I've started the auditing and have 15+ patches in the queue. (only > > > > covers bluetooth, console, pmem, virtio-net and caif). Spotting the > > > > issue is not hard but the testing, It would take at least the time of > > > > one release to finalize I guess. > > > > > > Absolutely. So I am looking for a way to implement hardening that does > > > not break existing drivers. > > > > I totally agree with you to seek a way without bothering the drivers. > > Just wonder if this is possbile. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason config was kind of easy is that config interrupt is rarely > > > > > > > vital for device function so arbitrarily deferring that does not lead to > > > > > > > deadlocks - what you are trying to do with VQ interrupts is > > > > > > > fundamentally different. Things are especially bad if we just drop > > > > > > > an interrupt but deferring can lead to problems too. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure I see the difference, disable_irq() stuffs also delay the > > > > > > interrupt processing until enable_irq(). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Absolutely. I am not at all sure disable_irq fixes all problems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consider as an example > > > > > > > virtio-net: fix race between ndo_open() and virtio_device_ready() > > > > > > > if you just defer vq interrupts you get deadlocks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see a deadlock here, maybe you can show more detail on this? > > > > > > > > > > What I mean is this: if we revert the above commit, things still > > > > > work (out of spec, but still). If we revert and defer interrupts until > > > > > device ready then ndo_open that triggers before device ready deadlocks. > > > > > > > > Ok, I guess you meant on a hypervisor that is strictly written with spec. > > > > > > I mean on hypervisor that starts processing queues after getting a kick > > > even without DRIVER_OK. > > > > Oh right. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, thinking about all this, how about a simple per vq flag meaning > > > > > > > "this vq was kicked since reset"? > > > > > > > > > > > > And ignore the notification if vq is not kicked? It sounds like the > > > > > > callback needs to be synchronized with the kick. > > > > > > > > > > Note we only need to synchronize it when it changes, which is > > > > > only during initialization and reset. > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If driver does not kick then it's not ready to get callbacks, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds quite clean, but we need to think through memory ordering > > > > > > > concerns - I guess it's only when we change the value so > > > > > > > if (!vq->kicked) { > > > > > > > vq->kicked = true; > > > > > > > mb(); > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will do the trick, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > There's no much difference with the existing approach: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) your proposal implicitly makes callbacks ready in virtqueue_kick() > > > > > > 2) my proposal explicitly makes callbacks ready via virtio_device_ready() > > > > > > > > > > > > Both require careful auditing of all the existing drivers to make sure > > > > > > no kick before DRIVER_OK. > > > > > > > > > > Jason, kick before DRIVER_OK is out of spec, sure. But it is unrelated > > > > > to hardening > > > > > > > > Yes but with your proposal, it seems to couple kick with DRIVER_OK somehow. > > > > > > I don't see how - my proposal ignores DRIVER_OK issues. > > > > Yes, what I meant is, in your proposal, the first kick after rest is a > > hint that the driver is ok (but actually it could not). > > > > > > > > > > and in absence of config interrupts is generally easily > > > > > fixed just by sticking virtio_device_ready early in initialization. > > > > > > > > So if the kick is done before the subsystem registration, there's > > > > still a window in the middle (assuming we stick virtio_device_ready() > > > > early): > > > > > > > > virtio_device_ready() > > > > virtqueue_kick() > > > > /* the window */ > > > > subsystem_registration() > > > > > > Absolutely, however, I do not think we really have many such drivers > > > since this has been known as a wrong thing to do since the beginning. > > > Want to try to find any? > > > > Yes, let me try and update. > > This is basically the device that have an RX queue, so I've found the > following drivers: > > scmi, mac80211_hwsim, vsock, bt, balloon.Looked and I don't see it yet. Let's consider ./net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c for example. Assuming we block callbacks until the first kick, what is the issue with probe exactly?> > > > >I couldn't ... except maybe bluetooth > > > but that's just maintainer nacking fixes saying he'll fix it > > > his way ... > > > > > > > And during remove(), we get another window: > > > > > > > > subsysrem_unregistration() > > > > /* the window */ > > > > virtio_device_reset() > > > > > > Same here. > > Basically for the drivers that set driver_ok before registration,I don't see what does driver_ok have to do with it.> so > we have a lot: > > blk, net, mac80211_hwsim, scsi, vsock, bt, crypto, gpio, gpu, i2c, > iommu, caif, pmem, input, mem > > So I think there's no easy way to harden the notification without > auditing the driver one by one (especially considering the driver may > use bh or workqueue). The problem is the notification hardening > depends on a correct or race-free probe/remove. So we need to fix the > issues in probe/remove then do the hardening on the notification. > > ThanksSo if drivers kick but are not ready to get callbacks then let's fix that first of all, these are racy with existing qemu even ignoring spec compliance. -- MST
Jason Wang
2022-Jun-29 07:02 UTC
[PATCH V3] virtio: disable notification hardening by default
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 2:31 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote:> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 12:07:11PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 2:17 PM Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 1:00 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 11:49:12AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > > Heh. Yea sure. But things work fine for people. What is the chance > > > > > > your review found and fixed all driver bugs? > > > > > > > > > > I don't/can't audit all bugs but the race between open/close against > > > > > ready/reset. It looks to me a good chance to fix them all but if you > > > > > think differently, let me know > > > > > > > > > > > After two attempts > > > > > > I don't feel like hoping audit will fix all bugs. > > > > > > > > > > I've started the auditing and have 15+ patches in the queue. (only > > > > > covers bluetooth, console, pmem, virtio-net and caif). Spotting the > > > > > issue is not hard but the testing, It would take at least the time of > > > > > one release to finalize I guess. > > > > > > > > Absolutely. So I am looking for a way to implement hardening that does > > > > not break existing drivers. > > > > > > I totally agree with you to seek a way without bothering the drivers. > > > Just wonder if this is possbile. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason config was kind of easy is that config interrupt is rarely > > > > > > > > vital for device function so arbitrarily deferring that does not lead to > > > > > > > > deadlocks - what you are trying to do with VQ interrupts is > > > > > > > > fundamentally different. Things are especially bad if we just drop > > > > > > > > an interrupt but deferring can lead to problems too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure I see the difference, disable_irq() stuffs also delay the > > > > > > > interrupt processing until enable_irq(). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Absolutely. I am not at all sure disable_irq fixes all problems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consider as an example > > > > > > > > virtio-net: fix race between ndo_open() and virtio_device_ready() > > > > > > > > if you just defer vq interrupts you get deadlocks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see a deadlock here, maybe you can show more detail on this? > > > > > > > > > > > > What I mean is this: if we revert the above commit, things still > > > > > > work (out of spec, but still). If we revert and defer interrupts until > > > > > > device ready then ndo_open that triggers before device ready deadlocks. > > > > > > > > > > Ok, I guess you meant on a hypervisor that is strictly written with spec. > > > > > > > > I mean on hypervisor that starts processing queues after getting a kick > > > > even without DRIVER_OK. > > > > > > Oh right. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, thinking about all this, how about a simple per vq flag meaning > > > > > > > > "this vq was kicked since reset"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And ignore the notification if vq is not kicked? It sounds like the > > > > > > > callback needs to be synchronized with the kick. > > > > > > > > > > > > Note we only need to synchronize it when it changes, which is > > > > > > only during initialization and reset. > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If driver does not kick then it's not ready to get callbacks, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds quite clean, but we need to think through memory ordering > > > > > > > > concerns - I guess it's only when we change the value so > > > > > > > > if (!vq->kicked) { > > > > > > > > vq->kicked = true; > > > > > > > > mb(); > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will do the trick, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's no much difference with the existing approach: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) your proposal implicitly makes callbacks ready in virtqueue_kick() > > > > > > > 2) my proposal explicitly makes callbacks ready via virtio_device_ready() > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both require careful auditing of all the existing drivers to make sure > > > > > > > no kick before DRIVER_OK. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jason, kick before DRIVER_OK is out of spec, sure. But it is unrelated > > > > > > to hardening > > > > > > > > > > Yes but with your proposal, it seems to couple kick with DRIVER_OK somehow. > > > > > > > > I don't see how - my proposal ignores DRIVER_OK issues. > > > > > > Yes, what I meant is, in your proposal, the first kick after rest is a > > > hint that the driver is ok (but actually it could not). > > > > > > > > > > > > > and in absence of config interrupts is generally easily > > > > > > fixed just by sticking virtio_device_ready early in initialization. > > > > > > > > > > So if the kick is done before the subsystem registration, there's > > > > > still a window in the middle (assuming we stick virtio_device_ready() > > > > > early): > > > > > > > > > > virtio_device_ready() > > > > > virtqueue_kick() > > > > > /* the window */ > > > > > subsystem_registration() > > > > > > > > Absolutely, however, I do not think we really have many such drivers > > > > since this has been known as a wrong thing to do since the beginning. > > > > Want to try to find any? > > > > > > Yes, let me try and update. > > > > This is basically the device that have an RX queue, so I've found the > > following drivers: > > > > scmi, mac80211_hwsim, vsock, bt, balloon. > > Looked and I don't see it yet. Let's consider > ./net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c for example. Assuming we block > callbacks until the first kick, what is the issue with probe exactly?We need to make sure the callback can survive when it runs before sub system registration.> > > > > > > > >I couldn't ... except maybe bluetooth > > > > but that's just maintainer nacking fixes saying he'll fix it > > > > his way ... > > > > > > > > > And during remove(), we get another window: > > > > > > > > > > subsysrem_unregistration() > > > > > /* the window */ > > > > > virtio_device_reset() > > > > > > > > Same here. > > > > Basically for the drivers that set driver_ok before registration, > > I don't see what does driver_ok have to do with it.I meant for those driver, in probe they do() virtio_device_ready() subsystem_register() In remove() they do subsystem_unregister() virtio_device_reset() for symmetry> > > so > > we have a lot: > > > > blk, net, mac80211_hwsim, scsi, vsock, bt, crypto, gpio, gpu, i2c, > > iommu, caif, pmem, input, mem > > > > So I think there's no easy way to harden the notification without > > auditing the driver one by one (especially considering the driver may > > use bh or workqueue). The problem is the notification hardening > > depends on a correct or race-free probe/remove. So we need to fix the > > issues in probe/remove then do the hardening on the notification. > > > > Thanks > > So if drivers kick but are not ready to get callbacks then let's fix > that first of all, these are racy with existing qemu even ignoring > spec compliance.Yes, (the patches I've posted so far exist even with a well-behaved device). Thanks> > > -- > MST >