[v1,1/5] IB/uverbs: ex_query_device: answer must not depend on request's comp_mask

Hi,

Le jeudi 29 janvier 2015 à 11:28 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe a écrit :
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 06:59:58PM +0100, Yann Droneaud wrote:
> > As specified in "Extending Verbs API" presentation [1] by Tzahi Oved
> > during OFA International Developer Workshop 2013, the request's
> > comp_mask should describe the request data: it's describe the
> > availability of extended fields in the request.
> > Conversely, the response's comp_mask should describe the presence
> > of extended fields in the response.
> 
> Roland: I agree with Yann, these patches need to go in, or the ODP
> patches reverted.
> 

Reverting all On Demand Paging patches seems overkill:
if something as to be reverted it should be commit 5a77abf9a97a
("IB/core: Add support for extended query device caps") and the part of
commit 860f10a799c8 ("IB/core: Add flags for on demand paging support")
which modify ib_uverbs_ex_query_device().

But I wonder about this part of commit 860f10a799c8:

for some coherency between a subset of the bits (it's not a function
dedicated to check flags provided by userspace):

include/rdma/ib_verbs.h:

   1094 enum ib_access_flags {
   1095         IB_ACCESS_LOCAL_WRITE   = 1,
   1096         IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_WRITE  = (1<<1),
   1097         IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_READ   = (1<<2),
   1098         IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_ATOMIC = (1<<3),
   1099         IB_ACCESS_MW_BIND       = (1<<4),
   1100         IB_ZERO_BASED           = (1<<5),
   1101         IB_ACCESS_ON_DEMAND     = (1<<6),
   1102 };

drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_cmd.c: ib_uverbs_reg_mr()

    961         ret = ib_check_mr_access(cmd.access_flags);
    962         if (ret)
    963                 return ret;

include/rdma/ib_verbs.h:

   2643 static inline int ib_check_mr_access(int flags)
   2644 {
   2645         /*
   2646          * Local write permission is required if remote write or
   2647          * remote atomic permission is also requested.
   2648          */
   2649         if (flags & (IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_ATOMIC | IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_WRITE) &&
   2650             !(flags & IB_ACCESS_LOCAL_WRITE))
   2651                 return -EINVAL;
   2652 
   2653         return 0;
   2654 }

drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_cmd.c: ib_uverbs_reg_mr()

    990         mr = pd->device->reg_user_mr(pd, cmd.start, cmd.length, cmd.hca_va,
    991                                      cmd.access_flags, &udata);

reg_user_mr() functions may call ib_umem_get() and pass access_flags to
it:

drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c: ib_umem_get()

    114         /*
    115          * We ask for writable memory if any of the following
    116          * access flags are set.  "Local write" and "remote write"
    117          * obviously require write access.  "Remote atomic" can do
    118          * things like fetch and add, which will modify memory, and
    119          * "MW bind" can change permissions by binding a window.
    120          */
    121         umem->writable  = !!(access &
    122                 (IB_ACCESS_LOCAL_WRITE   | IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_WRITE |
    123                  IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_ATOMIC | IB_ACCESS_MW_BIND));
    124 
    125         if (access & IB_ACCESS_ON_DEMAND) {
    126                 ret = ib_umem_odp_get(context, umem);
    127                 if (ret) {
    128                         kfree(umem);
    129                         return ERR_PTR(ret);
    130                 }
    131                 return umem;
    132         }

As you can see only a few bits in access_flags are checked in the end,
so it may exist a very unlikely possibility that an existing userspace
program is setting this IB_ACCESS_ON_DEMAND bit without the intention
of enabling on demand paging as this would be unnoticed by older kernel.

In the other hand, a newer program built with on-demand-paging in mind
will set the bit, but when run on older kernel, it will be a no-op,
allowing the program to continue, perhaps thinking on-demand-paging
is available.

That should be avoided as much as possible.

Unfortunately, I think this cannot be fixed as it's was long since 
IB_ZERO_BASED was added by commit 7083e42ee2 ("IB/core: Add "type 2" 
memory windows support").
Anyway there was no check for IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_READ, nor 
IB_ACCESS_MW_BIND in the uverb layer either.

So, just as the second argument of open() syscall (remember O_TMPFILE,
see http://lwn.net/Articles/562294/ ), we will have to live with and be
careful ...

Regards.

[v1,1/5] IB/uverbs: ex_query_device: answer must not depend on request's comp_mask

Commit Message

Comments

Patch