RE: [PATCH v3 06/14] vfio/type1: Add VFIO_IOMMU_PASID_REQUEST (alloc/free)

[Liu, Yi L]

Hi Alex,

After more thinking, looks like adding a r-b tree is still not enough to
solve the potential problem for free a range of PASID in one ioctl. If
caller gives [0, MAX_UNIT] in the free request, kernel anyhow should
loop all the PASIDs and search in the r-b tree. Even VFIO can track the
smallest/largest allocated PASID, and limit the free range to an accurate
range, it is still no efficient. For example, user has allocated two PASIDs
( 1 and 999), and user gives the [0, MAX_UNIT] range in free request. VFIO
will limit the free range to be [1, 999], but still needs to loop PASID 1 -
999, and search in r-b tree.

So I'm wondering can we fall back to prior proposal which only free one
PASID for a free request. how about your opinion?

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/20200416084031.7266ad40@xxxxxxxxx/

Regards,
Yi Liu

> From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 10:26 AM
> 
> Hi Kevin,
> 
> > From: Tian, Kevin <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 10:18 AM
> >
> > > From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 10:08 AM
> > >
> > > Hi Kevin,
> > >
> > > > From: Tian, Kevin <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 9:57 AM
> > > >
> > > > > From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 8:32 AM
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Alex,
> > > > >
> > > > > > Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 3:55 AM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 08:16:16 +0000 "Liu, Yi L"
> > > > > > <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Alex,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From: Liu, Yi L < yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 2:28 PM
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Alex,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 5:19 AM
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 01:55:19 -0700 Liu Yi L
> > > > > > > > > <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This patch allows user space to request PASID
> > > > > > > > > > allocation/free,
> > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > when serving the request from the guest.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > PASIDs that are not freed by userspace are
> > > > > > > > > > automatically freed
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > the IOASID set is destroyed when process exits.
> > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > > > +static int vfio_iommu_type1_pasid_request(struct
> > > > > > > > > > +vfio_iommu
> > > > > *iommu,
> > > > > > > > > > +					  unsigned long arg) {
> > > > > > > > > > +	struct vfio_iommu_type1_pasid_request req;
> > > > > > > > > > +	unsigned long minsz;
> > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > +	minsz = offsetofend(struct
> > vfio_iommu_type1_pasid_request,
> > > > > > range);
> > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > +	if (copy_from_user(&req, (void __user *)arg, minsz))
> > > > > > > > > > +		return -EFAULT;
> > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > +	if (req.argsz < minsz || (req.flags &
> > > > > > ~VFIO_PASID_REQUEST_MASK))
> > > > > > > > > > +		return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > +	if (req.range.min > req.range.max)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Is it exploitable that a user can spin the kernel for a
> > > > > > > > > long time in the case of a free by calling this with [0,
> > > > > > > > > MAX_UINT] regardless of their
> > > > > > actual
> > > > > > > > allocations?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > IOASID can ensure that user can only free the PASIDs
> > > > > > > > allocated to the
> > > > > user.
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > it's true, kernel needs to loop all the PASIDs within the
> > > > > > > > range provided by user.
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > may take a long time. is there anything we can do? one
> > > > > > > > thing may limit
> > > > > the
> > > > > > range
> > > > > > > > provided by user?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > thought about it more, we have per-VM pasid quota (say
> > > > > > > 1000), so even if user passed down [0, MAX_UNIT], kernel
> > > > > > > will only loop the
> > > > > > > 1000 pasids at most. do you think we still need to do something on it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How do you figure that?  vfio_iommu_type1_pasid_request()
> > > > > > accepts the user's min/max so long as (max > min) and passes
> > > > > > that to vfio_iommu_type1_pasid_free(), then to
> > > > > > vfio_pasid_free_range() which loops as:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 	ioasid_t pasid = min;
> > > > > > 	for (; pasid <= max; pasid++)
> > > > > > 		ioasid_free(pasid);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A user might only be able to allocate 1000 pasids, but
> > > > > > apparently they can ask to free all they want.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's also not obvious to me that calling ioasid_free() is only
> > > > > > allowing the user to free their own passid.  Does it?  It
> > > > > > would be a pretty
> > > >
> > > > Agree. I thought ioasid_free should at least carry a token since
> > > > the user
> > > space is
> > > > only allowed to manage PASIDs in its own set...
> > > >
> > > > > > gaping hole if a user could free arbitrary pasids.  A r-b tree
> > > > > > of passids might help both for security and to bound spinning in a loop.
> > > > >
> > > > > oh, yes. BTW. instead of r-b tree in VFIO, maybe we can add an
> > > > > ioasid_set parameter for ioasid_free(), thus to prevent the user
> > > > > from freeing PASIDs that doesn't belong to it. I remember Jacob
> > > > > mentioned it
> > > before.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > check current ioasid_free:
> > > >
> > > >         spin_lock(&ioasid_allocator_lock);
> > > >         ioasid_data = xa_load(&active_allocator->xa, ioasid);
> > > >         if (!ioasid_data) {
> > > >                 pr_err("Trying to free unknown IOASID %u\n", ioasid);
> > > >                 goto exit_unlock;
> > > >         }
> > > >
> > > > Allow an user to trigger above lock paths with MAX_UINT times
> > > > might still
> > > be bad.
> > >
> > > yeah, how about the below two options:
> > >
> > > - comparing the max - min with the quota before calling ioasid_free().
> > >   If max - min > current quota of the user, then should fail it. If
> > >   max - min < quota, then call ioasid_free() one by one. still trigger
> > >   the above lock path with quota times.
> >
> > This is definitely wrong. [min, max] is about the range of the PASID
> > value, while quota is about the number of allocated PASIDs. It's a bit
> > weird to mix two together.
> 
> got it.
> 
> > btw what is the main purpose of allowing batch PASID free requests?
> > Can we just simplify to allow one PASID in each free just like how is
> > it done in allocation path?
> 
> it's an intention to reuse the [min, max] range as allocation path. currently, we
> don't have such request as far as I can see.
> 
> > >
> > > - pass the max and min to ioasid_free(), let ioasid_free() decide. should
> > >   be able to avoid trigger the lock multiple times, and ioasid has have a
> > >   track on how may PASIDs have been allocated, if max - min is larger than
> > >   the allocated number, should fail anyway.
> >
> > What about Alex's r-b tree suggestion? Is there any downside in you mind?
> 
> no downside, I was just wanting to reuse the tracks in ioasid_set. I can add a r-b
> for allocated PASIDs and find the PASIDs in the r-b tree only do free for the
> PASIDs found in r-b tree, others in the range would be ignored.
> does it look good?
> 
> Regards,
> Yi Liu
> 
> > Thanks,
> > Kevin