[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] vfio/common: Do not g_free in vfio_get_iommu_info
From: |
Alex Williamson |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] vfio/common: Do not g_free in vfio_get_iommu_info |
Date: |
Wed, 14 Sep 2022 12:30:31 -0600 |
On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 12:10:29 -0600
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 13:51:30 -0700
> Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 02:38:52PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 09 2022, Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Its caller vfio_connect_container() assigns a default value
> > > > to info->iova_pgsizes, even if vfio_get_iommu_info() fails.
> > > > This would result in a "Segmentation fault" error, when the
> > > > VFIO_IOMMU_GET_INFO ioctl errors out.
> > > >
> > > > Since the caller has g_free already, drop the g_free in its
> > > > rollback routine and add a line of comments to highlight it.
> > >
> > > There's basically two ways to fix this:
> > >
> > > - return *info in any case, even on error
> > > - free *info on error, and make sure that the caller doesn't try to
> > > access *info if the function returned !0
> > >
> > > The problem with the first option is that the caller will access invalid
> > > information if it neglects to check the return code, and that might lead
> > > to not-that-obvious errors; in the second case, a broken caller would at
> > > least fail quickly with a segfault. The current code is easier to fix
> > > with the first option.
> > >
> > > I think I'd prefer the second option; but obviously maintainer's choice.
> > >
> >
> > The caller does check rc all the time. So I made a smaller fix
> > (the first option). Attaching the git-diff for the second one.
> >
> > Alex, please let me know which one you prefer. Thanks!
> >
> > diff --git a/hw/vfio/common.c b/hw/vfio/common.c
> > index 51b2e05c76..74431411ab 100644
> > --- a/hw/vfio/common.c
> > +++ b/hw/vfio/common.c
> [snip]
>
> I think we can do better than that, I don't think we need to maintain
> the existing grouping, and that FIXME comment is outdated and has
> drifted from the relevant line of code. What about:
>
> diff --git a/hw/vfio/common.c b/hw/vfio/common.c
> index ace9562a9ba1..8d8c54d59083 100644
> --- a/hw/vfio/common.c
> +++ b/hw/vfio/common.c
> @@ -2111,29 +2111,31 @@ static int vfio_connect_container(VFIOGroup *group,
> AddressSpace *as,
> {
> struct vfio_iommu_type1_info *info;
>
> - /*
> - * FIXME: This assumes that a Type1 IOMMU can map any 64-bit
> - * IOVA whatsoever. That's not actually true, but the current
> - * kernel interface doesn't tell us what it can map, and the
> - * existing Type1 IOMMUs generally support any IOVA we're
> - * going to actually try in practice.
> + /*
> + * Setup defaults for container pgsizes and dma_max_mappings if not
> + * provided by kernel below.
> */
> - ret = vfio_get_iommu_info(container, &info);
> -
> - if (ret || !(info->flags & VFIO_IOMMU_INFO_PGSIZES)) {
> - /* Assume 4k IOVA page size */
> - info->iova_pgsizes = 4096;
> - }
> - vfio_host_win_add(container, 0, (hwaddr)-1, info->iova_pgsizes);
> - container->pgsizes = info->iova_pgsizes;
> -
> - /* The default in the kernel ("dma_entry_limit") is 65535. */
> + container->pgsizes = 4096;
> container->dma_max_mappings = 65535;
> +
> + ret = vfio_get_iommu_info(container, &info);
> if (!ret) {
Or better still:
if (!vfio_get_iommu_info(container, &info)) {
> + if (info->flags & VFIO_IOMMU_INFO_PGSIZES) {
> + container->pgsizes = info->iova_pgsizes;
> + }
> +
> vfio_get_info_dma_avail(info, &container->dma_max_mappings);
> vfio_get_iommu_info_migration(container, info);
> + g_free(info);
> }
> - g_free(info);
> +
> + /*
> + * FIXME: We should parse VFIO_IOMMU_TYPE1_INFO_CAP_IOVA_RANGE
> + * information to get the actual window extent rather than assume
> + * a 64-bit IOVA address space.
> + */
> + vfio_host_win_add(container, 0, (hwaddr)-1, container->pgsizes);
> +
> break;
> }
> case VFIO_SPAPR_TCE_v2_IOMMU:
>
- [PATCH] vfio/common: Do not g_free in vfio_get_iommu_info, Nicolin Chen, 2022/09/09
- Re: [PATCH] vfio/common: Do not g_free in vfio_get_iommu_info, Cornelia Huck, 2022/09/12
- Re: [PATCH] vfio/common: Do not g_free in vfio_get_iommu_info, Nicolin Chen, 2022/09/12
- Re: [PATCH] vfio/common: Do not g_free in vfio_get_iommu_info, Alex Williamson, 2022/09/14
- Re: [PATCH] vfio/common: Do not g_free in vfio_get_iommu_info,
Alex Williamson <=
- Re: [PATCH] vfio/common: Do not g_free in vfio_get_iommu_info, Nicolin Chen, 2022/09/14
- Re: [PATCH] vfio/common: Do not g_free in vfio_get_iommu_info, Alex Williamson, 2022/09/14
- Re: [PATCH] vfio/common: Do not g_free in vfio_get_iommu_info, Alex Williamson, 2022/09/14
- Re: [PATCH] vfio/common: Do not g_free in vfio_get_iommu_info, Nicolin Chen, 2022/09/14