Re: [PATCH 15/17] vfio/pci: Let enable and disable of interrupt types use same signature

[Alex Williamson]

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 13:46:37 -0800
Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Alex,
> 
> On 2/5/2024 2:35 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu,  1 Feb 2024 20:57:09 -0800
> > Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:  
> 
> ..
> 
> >> @@ -715,13 +724,13 @@ static int vfio_pci_set_intx_trigger(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev,
> >>  		if (is_intx(vdev))
> >>  			return vfio_irq_set_block(vdev, start, count, fds, index);
> >>  
> >> -		ret = vfio_intx_enable(vdev);
> >> +		ret = vfio_intx_enable(vdev, start, count, index);  
> > 
> > Please trace what happens when a user calls SET_IRQS to setup a trigger
> > eventfd with start = 0, count = 1, followed by any other combination of
> > start and count values once is_intx() is true.  vfio_intx_enable()
> > cannot be the only place we bounds check the user, all of the INTx
> > callbacks should be an error or nop if vector != 0.  Thanks,
> >   
> 
> Thank you very much for catching this. I plan to add the vector
> check to the device_name() and request_interrupt() callbacks. I do
> not think it is necessary to add the vector check to disable() since
> it does not operate on a range and from what I can tell it depends on
> a successful enable() that already contains the vector check. Similar,
> free_interrupt() requires a successful request_interrupt() (that will
> have vector check in next version).
> send_eventfd() requires a valid interrupt context that is only
> possible if enable() or request_interrupt() succeeded.

Sounds reasonable.

> If user space creates an eventfd with start = 0 and count = 1
> and then attempts to trigger the eventfd using another combination then
> the changes in this series will result in a nop while the current
> implementation will result in -EINVAL. Is this acceptable?

I think by nop, you mean the ioctl returns success.  Was the call a
success?  Thanks,

Alex