Re: [PATCH v5 01/17] hw/vfio/pci: Ensure MSI and MSI-X do not overlap

[Alex Williamson]

On Sat, 29 Oct 2022 01:12:11 +0900
Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.odaki@daynix.com> wrote:

> On 2022/10/28 23:16, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Oct 2022 21:26:13 +0900
> > Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.odaki@daynix.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> vfio_add_std_cap() is designed to ensure that capabilities do not
> >> overlap, but it failed to do so for MSI and MSI-X capabilities.
> >>
> >> Ensure MSI and MSI-X capabilities do not overlap with others by omitting
> >> other overlapping capabilities.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.odaki@daynix.com>
> >> ---
> >>   hw/vfio/pci.c | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> >>   hw/vfio/pci.h |  3 +++
> >>   2 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/hw/vfio/pci.c b/hw/vfio/pci.c
> >> index 939dcc3d4a..36c8f3dc85 100644
> >> --- a/hw/vfio/pci.c
> >> +++ b/hw/vfio/pci.c
> >> @@ -1278,23 +1278,42 @@ static void vfio_disable_interrupts(VFIOPCIDevice 
> >> *vdev)
> >>       }
> >>   }
> >>   
> >> -static int vfio_msi_setup(VFIOPCIDevice *vdev, int pos, Error **errp)
> >> +static void vfio_msi_early_setup(VFIOPCIDevice *vdev, Error **errp)
> >>   {
> >>       uint16_t ctrl;
> >> -    bool msi_64bit, msi_maskbit;
> >> -    int ret, entries;
> >> -    Error *err = NULL;
> >> +    uint8_t pos;
> >> +
> >> +    pos = pci_find_capability(&vdev->pdev, PCI_CAP_ID_MSI);
> >> +    if (!pos) {
> >> +        return;
> >> +    }
> >>   
> >>       if (pread(vdev->vbasedev.fd, &ctrl, sizeof(ctrl),
> >>                 vdev->config_offset + pos + PCI_CAP_FLAGS) != 
> >> sizeof(ctrl)) {
> >>           error_setg_errno(errp, errno, "failed reading MSI 
> >> PCI_CAP_FLAGS");
> >> -        return -errno;
> >> +        return;
> >>       }
> >> -    ctrl = le16_to_cpu(ctrl);
> >> +    vdev->msi_pos = pos;
> >> +    vdev->msi_ctrl = le16_to_cpu(ctrl);
> >>   
> >> -    msi_64bit = !!(ctrl & PCI_MSI_FLAGS_64BIT);
> >> -    msi_maskbit = !!(ctrl & PCI_MSI_FLAGS_MASKBIT);
> >> -    entries = 1 << ((ctrl & PCI_MSI_FLAGS_QMASK) >> 1);
> >> +    vdev->msi_cap_size = 0xa;
> >> +    if ((vdev->msi_ctrl & PCI_MSI_FLAGS_MASKBIT)) {
> >> +        vdev->msi_cap_size += 0xa;
> >> +    }
> >> +    if ((vdev->msi_ctrl & PCI_MSI_FLAGS_64BIT)) {
> >> +        vdev->msi_cap_size += 0x4;
> >> +    }
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static int vfio_msi_setup(VFIOPCIDevice *vdev, int pos, Error **errp)
> >> +{
> >> +    bool msi_64bit, msi_maskbit;
> >> +    int ret, entries;
> >> +    Error *err = NULL;
> >> +
> >> +    msi_64bit = !!(vdev->msi_ctrl & PCI_MSI_FLAGS_64BIT);
> >> +    msi_maskbit = !!(vdev->msi_ctrl & PCI_MSI_FLAGS_MASKBIT);
> >> +    entries = 1 << ((vdev->msi_ctrl & PCI_MSI_FLAGS_QMASK) >> 1);
> >>   
> >>       trace_vfio_msi_setup(vdev->vbasedev.name, pos);
> >>   
> >> @@ -1306,7 +1325,6 @@ static int vfio_msi_setup(VFIOPCIDevice *vdev, int 
> >> pos, Error **errp)
> >>           error_propagate_prepend(errp, err, "msi_init failed: ");
> >>           return ret;
> >>       }
> >> -    vdev->msi_cap_size = 0xa + (msi_maskbit ? 0xa : 0) + (msi_64bit ? 0x4 
> >> : 0);
> >>   
> >>       return 0;
> >>   }
> >> @@ -1524,6 +1542,7 @@ static void vfio_msix_early_setup(VFIOPCIDevice 
> >> *vdev, Error **errp)
> >>       pba = le32_to_cpu(pba);
> >>   
> >>       msix = g_malloc0(sizeof(*msix));
> >> +    msix->pos = pos;
> >>       msix->table_bar = table & PCI_MSIX_FLAGS_BIRMASK;
> >>       msix->table_offset = table & ~PCI_MSIX_FLAGS_BIRMASK;
> >>       msix->pba_bar = pba & PCI_MSIX_FLAGS_BIRMASK;
> >> @@ -2025,6 +2044,24 @@ static int vfio_add_std_cap(VFIOPCIDevice *vdev, 
> >> uint8_t pos, Error **errp)
> >>           }
> >>       }
> >>   
> >> +    if (cap_id != PCI_CAP_ID_MSI &&
> >> +        range_covers_byte(vdev->msi_pos, vdev->msi_cap_size, pos)) {
> >> +        warn_report(VFIO_MSG_PREFIX
> >> +                    "A capability overlaps with MSI, ignoring (%" PRIu8 " 
> >> @ %" PRIu8 " in [%" PRIu8 ", %" PRIu8 "))",
> >> +                    vdev->vbasedev.name, cap_id, pos,
> >> +                    vdev->msi_pos, vdev->msi_pos + vdev->msi_cap_size);
> >> +        return 0;
> >> +    }
> >> +
> >> +    if (cap_id != PCI_CAP_ID_MSIX && vdev->msix &&
> >> +        range_covers_byte(vdev->msix->pos, MSIX_CAP_LENGTH, pos)) {
> >> +        warn_report(VFIO_MSG_PREFIX
> >> +                    "A capability overlaps with MSI-X, ignoring (%" PRIu8 
> >> " @ %" PRIu8 " in [%" PRIu8 ", %" PRIu8 "))",
> >> +                    vdev->vbasedev.name, cap_id, pos,
> >> +                    vdev->msix->pos, vdev->msix->pos + MSIX_CAP_LENGTH);
> >> +        return 0;
> >> +    }  
> > 
> > Capabilities are not a single byte, the fact that it doesn't start
> > within the MSI or MSI-X capability is not a sufficient test.  We're
> > also choosing to prioritize MSI and MSI-X capabilities by protecting
> > that range rather than the existing behavior where we'd drop those
> > capabilities if they overlap with another capability that has already
> > been placed.  There are merits to both approaches, but I don't see any
> > justification here to change the current behavior.
> > 
> > Isn't the most similar behavior to existing to pass the available size
> > to vfio_msi[x]_setup() and return an errno if the size would be
> > exceeded?  Something like below (untested, and requires exporting
> > msi_cap_sizeof()).  Thanks,  
> 
> It only tests the beginning of the capability currently being added 
> because its end is determined by vfio_std_cap_max_size() so that the 
> overlap does not happen.
> 
> A comment in vfio_add_std_cap() says:
>  >     /*
>  >      * If it becomes important to configure capabilities to their actual
>  >      * size, use this as the default when it's something we don't   
> recognize.
>  >      * Since QEMU doesn't actually handle many of the config accesses,
>  >      * exact size doesn't seem worthwhile.
>  >      */  
> 
> My understanding of the problem is that while clipping is performed when 
> overlapping two capabilities other than MSI and MSI-X according to the 
> comment, the clipping does not happen when one of the overlapping 
> capability is MSI or MSI-X.
> 
> According to that, the correct way to fix is to perform clipping also in 
> such a case. As QEMU actually handles the config acccesses for MSI and 
> MSI-X, MSI and MSI-X are always priotized over the other capabilities.

Here's a scenario, a vendor ships a device with an MSI capability where
the MSI control register reports per vector masking, but the packing of
the capabilities is such that the next capability doesn't allow for the
mask and pending bits registers.  Currently, depending on the order we
add them, pci_add_capability() will fail for either the MSI capability
or the encroaching capability.  This failure will propagate back to
vfio_realize and we'll fail to instantiate the device.  To make this
scenario even a bit more pathological, let's assume the encroaching
capability is MSI-X.

As proposed here, we'd drop the MSI-X capability because it's starting
position lies within our expectation of the extent of the MSI
capability, and we'd allow the device to initialize with only MSI.
Was that intentional?  Was that a good choice?  What if the driver
only supports MSI-X?  We've subtly, perhaps unintentionally, changed
the policy based on some notion of prioritizing certain capabilities
over others.

The intent of vfio_std_cap_max_size() is not to intentionally
clip ranges, it's only meant to simplify defining the extent of a
capability to be bounded by the nearest capability after it in config
space.

Currently we rely on a combination of our own range management and the
overlap detection in pci_add_capability() to generate a device
instantiation failure.  If it's deemed worthwhile to remove the latter,
and that is the extent of the focus of this series, let's not go
dabbling into defining new priority schemes for capabilities and
defining certain overlap scenarios as arbitrarily continue'able.
Thanks,

Alex