qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [PATCH v7 1/6] memory: prevent dma-reentracy issues


From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/6] memory: prevent dma-reentracy issues
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 09:45:39 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.8.0

Hi Alex,

Sorry for the late review, *sigh*.

On 13/3/23 09:24, Alexander Bulekov wrote:
Add a flag to the DeviceState, when a device is engaged in PIO/MMIO/DMA.
This flag is set/checked prior to calling a device's MemoryRegion
handlers, and set when device code initiates DMA.  The purpose of this
flag is to prevent two types of DMA-based reentrancy issues:

1.) mmio -> dma -> mmio case
2.) bh -> dma write -> mmio case

These issues have led to problems such as stack-exhaustion and
use-after-frees.

Summary of the problem from Peter Maydell:
https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/CAFEAcA_23vc7hE3iaM-JVA6W38LK4hJoWae5KcknhPRD5fPBZA@mail.gmail.com

Resolves: https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues/62
Resolves: https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues/540
Resolves: https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues/541
Resolves: https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues/556
Resolves: https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues/557
Resolves: https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues/827
Resolves: https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues/1282

Reviewed-by: Darren Kenny <darren.kenny@oracle.com>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Bulekov <alxndr@bu.edu>
Acked-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
---
  include/hw/qdev-core.h |  7 +++++++
  softmmu/memory.c       | 17 +++++++++++++++++
  softmmu/trace-events   |  1 +
  3 files changed, 25 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/hw/qdev-core.h b/include/hw/qdev-core.h
index bd50ad5ee1..7623703943 100644
--- a/include/hw/qdev-core.h
+++ b/include/hw/qdev-core.h
@@ -162,6 +162,10 @@ struct NamedClockList {
      QLIST_ENTRY(NamedClockList) node;
  };
+typedef struct {
+    bool engaged_in_io;

Do you plan to add more fields?

+} MemReentrancyGuard;
+
  /**
   * DeviceState:
   * @realized: Indicates whether the device has been fully constructed.
@@ -194,6 +198,9 @@ struct DeviceState {
      int alias_required_for_version;
      ResettableState reset;
      GSList *unplug_blockers;
+
+    /* Is the device currently in mmio/pio/dma? Used to prevent re-entrancy */
+    MemReentrancyGuard mem_reentrancy_guard;

At this point I'm not sure anymore this is a device or MR property.

  };
struct DeviceListener {
diff --git a/softmmu/memory.c b/softmmu/memory.c
index 4699ba55ec..57bf18a257 100644
--- a/softmmu/memory.c
+++ b/softmmu/memory.c
@@ -533,6 +533,7 @@ static MemTxResult access_with_adjusted_size(hwaddr addr,
      uint64_t access_mask;
      unsigned access_size;
      unsigned i;
+    DeviceState *dev = NULL;
      MemTxResult r = MEMTX_OK;
if (!access_size_min) {
@@ -542,6 +543,19 @@ static MemTxResult access_with_adjusted_size(hwaddr addr,
          access_size_max = 4;
      }
+ /* Do not allow more than one simultanous access to a device's IO Regions */

Typo "simultaneous".

1/ access_with_adjusted_size() is complex enough and we are having hard
   time getting it right. I'd prefer we don't intermix size adjustment
   and re-entrancy check in the same function. This check could belong
   to the callers.

2/ I'm not keen on calling QOM object_dynamic_cast() in this hot path;
   and mixing QDev API within MR one. At least, can we cache this value
   once in memory_region_do_init() since we have access to @owner?

+    if (mr->owner &&
+        !mr->ram_device && !mr->ram && !mr->rom_device && !mr->readonly) {
+        dev = (DeviceState *) object_dynamic_cast(mr->owner, TYPE_DEVICE);
+        if (dev) {
+            if (dev->mem_reentrancy_guard.engaged_in_io) {
+                trace_memory_region_reentrant_io(get_cpu_index(), mr, addr, 
size);
+                return MEMTX_ERROR;

MEMTX_ERROR is device-specific, I'm not sure it is right to return it
from this generic path. Maybe you meant MEMTX_ACCESS_ERROR?

+            }
+            dev->mem_reentrancy_guard.engaged_in_io = true;
+        }
+    }
+
      /* FIXME: support unaligned access? */
      access_size = MAX(MIN(size, access_size_max), access_size_min);
      access_mask = MAKE_64BIT_MASK(0, access_size * 8);
@@ -556,6 +570,9 @@ static MemTxResult access_with_adjusted_size(hwaddr addr,
                          access_mask, attrs);
          }
      }
+    if (dev) {
+        dev->mem_reentrancy_guard.engaged_in_io = false;
+    }
      return r;
  }




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]