From patchwork Fri Feb 22 18:39:40 2019 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Eric Farman X-Patchwork-Id: 10826821 Return-Path: Received: from mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (pdx-wl-mail.web.codeaurora.org [172.30.200.125]) by pdx-korg-patchwork-2.web.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 644361805 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 18:39:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53B9331561 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 18:39:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix, from userid 486) id 47FE13156B; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 18:39:57 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on pdx-wl-mail.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.9 required=2.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C704831561 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 18:39:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726490AbfBVSjz (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Feb 2019 13:39:55 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:34398 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726106AbfBVSjy (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Feb 2019 13:39:54 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x1MIdSKH123287 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 13:39:53 -0500 Received: from e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.98]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2qtnxk1xq1-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 13:39:53 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 18:39:51 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.198) by e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.132) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Fri, 22 Feb 2019 18:39:48 -0000 Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.58]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x1MIdkW832571520 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 22 Feb 2019 18:39:46 GMT Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A8534C044; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 18:39:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EBCE4C040; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 18:39:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (unknown [9.152.85.9]) by d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 18:39:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: by tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (Postfix, from userid 4958) id EB3D120F5CF; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 19:39:44 +0100 (CET) From: Eric Farman To: Cornelia Huck , Farhan Ali , Halil Pasic Cc: Eric Farman , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH 1/2] s390/cio: Fix vfio-ccw handling of recursive TICs Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 19:39:40 +0100 X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.16.4 In-Reply-To: <20190222183941.29596-1-farman@linux.ibm.com> References: <20190222183941.29596-1-farman@linux.ibm.com> X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19022218-0008-0000-0000-000002C3C0C9 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19022218-0009-0000-0000-0000223000C8 Message-Id: <20190222183941.29596-2-farman@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-02-22_12:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1902220127 Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP The routine ccwchain_calc_length() is tasked with looking at a channel program, seeing how many CCWs are chained together by the presence of the Chain-Command flag, and returning a count to the caller. Previously, it also considered a Transfer-in-Channel CCW as being an appropriate mechanism for chaining. The problem at the time was that the TIC CCW will almost certainly not go to the next CCW in memory (because the CC flag would be sufficient), and so advancing to the next 8 bytes will cause us to read potentially invalid memory. So that comparison was removed, and the target of the TIC is processed as a new chain. This is fine when a TIC goes to a new chain (consider a NOP+TIC to a channel program that is being redriven), but there is another scenario where this falls apart. A TIC can be used to "rewind" a channel program, for example to find a particular record on a disk with various orientation CCWs. In this case, we DO want to consider the memory after the TIC since the TIC will be skipped once the requested criteria is met. This is due to the Status Modifier presented by the device, though software doesn't need to operate on it beyond understanding the behavior change of how the channel program is executed. So to handle this, we will re-introduce the check for a TIC CCW but limit it by examining the target of the TIC. If the TIC doesn't go back into the current chain, then current behavior applies; we should stop counting CCWs and let the target of the TIC be handled as a new chain. But, if the TIC DOES go back into the current chain, then we need to keep looking at the memory after the TIC for when the channel breaks out of the TIC loop. We can't use tic_target_chain_exists() because the chain in question hasn't been built yet, so we will redefine that comparison with some small functions to make it more readable and to permit refactoring later. Fixes: 405d566f98ae ("vfio-ccw: Don't assume there are more ccws after a TIC") Signed-off-by: Eric Farman Reviewed-by: Halil Pasic --- The commit in question is queued in the s390/features branch for the 5.1 merge window. --- drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_cp.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_cp.c b/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_cp.c index ba08fe137c2e..a423bf4c4700 100644 --- a/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_cp.c +++ b/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_cp.c @@ -283,6 +283,33 @@ static long copy_ccw_from_iova(struct channel_program *cp, #define ccw_is_chain(_ccw) ((_ccw)->flags & (CCW_FLAG_CC | CCW_FLAG_DC)) +/* + * is_cpa_within_range() + * + * @cpa: channel program address being questioned + * @head: address of the beginning of a CCW chain + * @len: number of CCWs within the chain + * + * Determine whether the address of a CCW (whether a new chain, + * or the target of a TIC) falls within a range. + * + * Returns 1 if yes, 0 if no. + */ +static inline int is_cpa_within_range(u32 cpa, u32 head, int len) +{ + u32 tail = head + (len - 1) * sizeof(struct ccw1); + + return (head <= cpa && cpa <= tail); +} + +static inline int is_tic_within_range(struct ccw1 *ccw, u32 head, int len) +{ + if (!ccw_is_tic(ccw)) + return 0; + + return is_cpa_within_range(ccw->cda, head, len); +} + static struct ccwchain *ccwchain_alloc(struct channel_program *cp, int len) { struct ccwchain *chain; @@ -392,7 +419,15 @@ static int ccwchain_calc_length(u64 iova, struct channel_program *cp) return -EOPNOTSUPP; } - if (!ccw_is_chain(ccw)) + /* + * We want to keep counting if the current CCW has the + * command-chaining flag enabled, or if it is a TIC CCW + * that loops back into the current chain. The latter + * is used for device orientation, where the CCW PRIOR to + * the TIC can either jump to the TIC or a CCW immediately + * after the TIC, depending on the results of its operation. + */ + if (!ccw_is_chain(ccw) && !is_tic_within_range(ccw, iova, cnt)) break; ccw++; From patchwork Fri Feb 22 18:39:41 2019 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Eric Farman X-Patchwork-Id: 10826819 Return-Path: Received: from mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (pdx-wl-mail.web.codeaurora.org [172.30.200.125]) by pdx-korg-patchwork-2.web.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A65951805 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 18:39:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95A7C31561 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 18:39:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix, from userid 486) id 871843156B; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 18:39:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on pdx-wl-mail.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.9 required=2.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2991831561 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 18:39:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726470AbfBVSjy (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Feb 2019 13:39:54 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:41948 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726023AbfBVSjx (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Feb 2019 13:39:53 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x1MIdUfn045036 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 13:39:52 -0500 Received: from e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.99]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2qtn6k4enm-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 13:39:51 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 18:39:49 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.195) by e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.133) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Fri, 22 Feb 2019 18:39:47 -0000 Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.58]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x1MIdjYc53411932 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 22 Feb 2019 18:39:45 GMT Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 714414C040; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 18:39:45 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E7894C04A; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 18:39:45 +0000 (GMT) Received: from tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (unknown [9.152.85.9]) by d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 18:39:45 +0000 (GMT) Received: by tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (Postfix, from userid 4958) id EC09F20F5F8; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 19:39:44 +0100 (CET) From: Eric Farman To: Cornelia Huck , Farhan Ali , Halil Pasic Cc: Eric Farman , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH 2/2] s390/cio: Use cpa range elsewhere within vfio-ccw Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 19:39:41 +0100 X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.16.4 In-Reply-To: <20190222183941.29596-1-farman@linux.ibm.com> References: <20190222183941.29596-1-farman@linux.ibm.com> X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19022218-0012-0000-0000-000002F904C1 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19022218-0013-0000-0000-000021309FB1 Message-Id: <20190222183941.29596-3-farman@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-02-22_12:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=913 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1902220127 Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Since we have a little function to see whether a channel program address falls within a range of CCWs, let's use it in the other places of code that make these checks. (Why isn't ccw_head fully removed? Well, because this way some longs lines don't have to be reflowed.) Signed-off-by: Eric Farman --- drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_cp.c | 18 ++++++------------ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_cp.c b/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_cp.c index a423bf4c4700..12f73c3fc6dc 100644 --- a/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_cp.c +++ b/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_cp.c @@ -443,13 +443,11 @@ static int ccwchain_calc_length(u64 iova, struct channel_program *cp) static int tic_target_chain_exists(struct ccw1 *tic, struct channel_program *cp) { struct ccwchain *chain; - u32 ccw_head, ccw_tail; + u32 ccw_head; list_for_each_entry(chain, &cp->ccwchain_list, next) { ccw_head = chain->ch_iova; - ccw_tail = ccw_head + (chain->ch_len - 1) * sizeof(struct ccw1); - - if ((ccw_head <= tic->cda) && (tic->cda <= ccw_tail)) + if (is_cpa_within_range(tic->cda, ccw_head, chain->ch_len)) return 1; } @@ -516,13 +514,11 @@ static int ccwchain_fetch_tic(struct ccwchain *chain, { struct ccw1 *ccw = chain->ch_ccw + idx; struct ccwchain *iter; - u32 ccw_head, ccw_tail; + u32 ccw_head; list_for_each_entry(iter, &cp->ccwchain_list, next) { ccw_head = iter->ch_iova; - ccw_tail = ccw_head + (iter->ch_len - 1) * sizeof(struct ccw1); - - if ((ccw_head <= ccw->cda) && (ccw->cda <= ccw_tail)) { + if (is_cpa_within_range(ccw->cda, ccw_head, iter->ch_len)) { ccw->cda = (__u32) (addr_t) (((char *)iter->ch_ccw) + (ccw->cda - ccw_head)); return 0; @@ -864,7 +860,7 @@ void cp_update_scsw(struct channel_program *cp, union scsw *scsw) { struct ccwchain *chain; u32 cpa = scsw->cmd.cpa; - u32 ccw_head, ccw_tail; + u32 ccw_head; /* * LATER: @@ -874,9 +870,7 @@ void cp_update_scsw(struct channel_program *cp, union scsw *scsw) */ list_for_each_entry(chain, &cp->ccwchain_list, next) { ccw_head = (u32)(u64)chain->ch_ccw; - ccw_tail = (u32)(u64)(chain->ch_ccw + chain->ch_len - 1); - - if ((ccw_head <= cpa) && (cpa <= ccw_tail)) { + if (is_cpa_within_range(cpa, ccw_head, chain->ch_len)) { /* * (cpa - ccw_head) is the offset value of the host * physical ccw to its chain head.