Re: [PATCH v2 3/8] s390/sclp: rework sclp boundary and length checks

[Thomas Huth]

On 16/05/2020 00.20, Collin Walling wrote:
> Rework the SCLP boundary check to account for different SCLP commands
> (eventually) allowing different boundary sizes.
> 
> Move the length check code into a separate function, and introduce a
> new function to determine the length of the read SCP data (i.e. the size
> from the start of the struct to where the CPU entries should begin).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Collin Walling <walling@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>  hw/s390x/sclp.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/hw/s390x/sclp.c b/hw/s390x/sclp.c
> index 2bd618515e..987699e3c4 100644
> --- a/hw/s390x/sclp.c
> +++ b/hw/s390x/sclp.c
> @@ -49,6 +49,34 @@ static inline bool sclp_command_code_valid(uint32_t code)
>      return false;
>  }
>  
> +static bool sccb_has_valid_boundary(uint64_t sccb_addr, uint32_t code,
> +                                    SCCBHeader *header)
> +{
> +    uint64_t current_len = sccb_addr + be16_to_cpu(header->length);
> +    uint64_t allowed_len = (sccb_addr & PAGE_MASK) + PAGE_SIZE;
> +
> +    switch (code & SCLP_CMD_CODE_MASK) {
> +    default:
> +        if (current_len <= allowed_len) {
> +            return true;
> +        }
> +    }
> +    header->response_code = cpu_to_be16(SCLP_RC_SCCB_BOUNDARY_VIOLATION);
> +    return false;
> +}
> +
> +/* Calculates sufficient SCCB length to store a full Read SCP/CPU response */
> +static bool sccb_has_sufficient_len(SCCB *sccb, int num_cpus, int data_len)
> +{
> +    int required_len = data_len + num_cpus * sizeof(CPUEntry);
> +
> +    if (be16_to_cpu(sccb->h.length) < required_len) {
> +        sccb->h.response_code = 
> cpu_to_be16(SCLP_RC_INSUFFICIENT_SCCB_LENGTH);
> +        return false;
> +    }
> +    return true;
> +}
> +
>  static void prepare_cpu_entries(MachineState *ms, CPUEntry *entry, int 
> *count)
>  {
>      uint8_t features[SCCB_CPU_FEATURE_LEN] = { 0 };
> @@ -66,6 +94,16 @@ static void prepare_cpu_entries(MachineState *ms, CPUEntry 
> *entry, int *count)
>      }
>  }
>  
> +/*
> + * The data length denotes the start of the struct to where the first
> + * CPU entry is to be allocated. This value also denotes the offset_cpu
> + * field.
> + */
> +static int get_read_scp_info_data_len(void)
> +{
> +    return offsetof(ReadInfo, entries);
> +}
> +
>  /* Provide information about the configuration, CPUs and storage */
>  static void read_SCP_info(SCLPDevice *sclp, SCCB *sccb)
>  {
> @@ -74,16 +112,16 @@ static void read_SCP_info(SCLPDevice *sclp, SCCB *sccb)
>      int cpu_count;
>      int rnsize, rnmax;
>      IplParameterBlock *ipib = s390_ipl_get_iplb();
> +    int data_len = get_read_scp_info_data_len();
>  
> -    if (be16_to_cpu(sccb->h.length) < (sizeof(ReadInfo) + cpu_count * 
> sizeof(CPUEntry))) {
> -        sccb->h.response_code = 
> cpu_to_be16(SCLP_RC_INSUFFICIENT_SCCB_LENGTH);
> +    if (!sccb_has_sufficient_len(sccb, machine->possible_cpus->len, 
> data_len)) {
>          return;
>      }
>  
>      /* CPU information */
>      prepare_cpu_entries(machine, read_info->entries, &cpu_count);
>      read_info->entries_cpu = cpu_to_be16(cpu_count);
> -    read_info->offset_cpu = cpu_to_be16(offsetof(ReadInfo, entries));
> +    read_info->offset_cpu = cpu_to_be16(data_len);
>      read_info->highest_cpu = cpu_to_be16(machine->smp.max_cpus - 1);
>  
>      read_info->ibc_val = cpu_to_be32(s390_get_ibc_val());
> @@ -132,16 +170,16 @@ static void sclp_read_cpu_info(SCLPDevice *sclp, SCCB 
> *sccb)
>  {
>      MachineState *machine = MACHINE(qdev_get_machine());
>      ReadCpuInfo *cpu_info = (ReadCpuInfo *) sccb;
> +    int data_len = offsetof(ReadCpuInfo, entries);

Is there a reason for not using get_read_scp_info_data_len() here?

 Thomas