Re: [PATCH v5] virtio-blk: Add validation for block size in config space

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 11:27:29AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 06:16:09PM +0800, Xie Yongji wrote:
> > An untrusted device might presents an invalid block size
> > in configuration space. This tries to add validation for it
> > in the validate callback and clear the VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE
> > feature bit if the value is out of the supported range.
> > 
> > And we also double check the value in virtblk_probe() in
> > case that it's changed after the validation.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Xie Yongji <xieyongji@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> So I had to revert this due basically bugs in QEMU.
> 
> My suggestion at this point is to try and update
> blk_queue_logical_block_size to BUG_ON when the size
> is out of a reasonable range.
> 
> This has the advantage of fixing more hardware, not just virtio.
> 
> 
> 
> > ---
> >  drivers/block/virtio_blk.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> >  1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > index 4b49df2dfd23..afb37aac09e8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > +++ b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > @@ -692,6 +692,28 @@ static const struct blk_mq_ops virtio_mq_ops = {
> >  static unsigned int virtblk_queue_depth;
> >  module_param_named(queue_depth, virtblk_queue_depth, uint, 0444);
> >  
> > +static int virtblk_validate(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> > +{
> > +	u32 blk_size;
> > +
> > +	if (!vdev->config->get) {
> > +		dev_err(&vdev->dev, "%s failure: config access disabled\n",
> > +			__func__);
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (!virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE))
> > +		return 0;
> > +
> > +	blk_size = virtio_cread32(vdev,
> > +			offsetof(struct virtio_blk_config, blk_size));
> > +
> > +	if (blk_size < SECTOR_SIZE || blk_size > PAGE_SIZE)
> > +		__virtio_clear_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE);
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> >  static int virtblk_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> >  {
> >  	struct virtio_blk *vblk;

I started wondering about this. So let's assume is
PAGE_SIZE < blk_size (after all it's up to guest at many platforms).

Will using the device even work given blk size is less than what
is can support?

And what exactly happens today if blk_size is out of this range?





> > @@ -703,12 +725,6 @@ static int virtblk_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> >  	u8 physical_block_exp, alignment_offset;
> >  	unsigned int queue_depth;
> >  
> > -	if (!vdev->config->get) {
> > -		dev_err(&vdev->dev, "%s failure: config access disabled\n",
> > -			__func__);
> > -		return -EINVAL;
> > -	}
> > -
> >  	err = ida_simple_get(&vd_index_ida, 0, minor_to_index(1 << MINORBITS),
> >  			     GFP_KERNEL);
> >  	if (err < 0)
> > @@ -823,6 +839,14 @@ static int virtblk_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> >  	else
> >  		blk_size = queue_logical_block_size(q);
> >  
> > +	if (unlikely(blk_size < SECTOR_SIZE || blk_size > PAGE_SIZE)) {
> > +		dev_err(&vdev->dev,
> > +			"block size is changed unexpectedly, now is %u\n",
> > +			blk_size);
> > +		err = -EINVAL;
> > +		goto err_cleanup_disk;
> > +	}
> > +
> >  	/* Use topology information if available */
> >  	err = virtio_cread_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_BLK_F_TOPOLOGY,
> >  				   struct virtio_blk_config, physical_block_exp,
> > @@ -881,6 +905,8 @@ static int virtblk_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> >  	device_add_disk(&vdev->dev, vblk->disk, virtblk_attr_groups);
> >  	return 0;
> >  
> > +err_cleanup_disk:
> > +	blk_cleanup_disk(vblk->disk);
> >  out_free_tags:
> >  	blk_mq_free_tag_set(&vblk->tag_set);
> >  out_free_vq:
> > @@ -983,6 +1009,7 @@ static struct virtio_driver virtio_blk = {
> >  	.driver.name			= KBUILD_MODNAME,
> >  	.driver.owner			= THIS_MODULE,
> >  	.id_table			= id_table,
> > +	.validate			= virtblk_validate,
> >  	.probe				= virtblk_probe,
> >  	.remove				= virtblk_remove,
> >  	.config_changed			= virtblk_config_changed,
> > -- 
> > 2.11.0