lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Apr]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH kernel] vfio_pci: Make extended capabilities test more robust
On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 21:04:52 +1000
Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru> wrote:

> VFIO reads a dword beyond the standard PCI config space (256 bytes) to
> know if there are extended config space (4096 bytes). It relies on
> the platform to return zero if there is no extended space.
>
> However at least on PPC64/POWERNV platform, the system firmware (OPAL)
> returns 0xffffffff in this case. VFIO treats it as a proof that there is
> extended config space and calls vfio_ecap_init() which fails to parse
> capabilities (which is expected) but right before the exit, it writes
> zero at offset of 256 which is beyond the buffer allocated for
> vdev->vconfig - it is 256 bytes for a device without extended config
> space.
>
> This adds an additional check that config space read returned non-zero
> and non-ffffffff value.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru>
> ---
> drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_config.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_config.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_config.c
> index 142c533..8a53421 100644
> --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_config.c
> +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_config.c
> @@ -1140,7 +1140,7 @@ static int vfio_cap_len(struct vfio_pci_device *vdev, u8 cap, u8 pos)
> case PCI_CAP_ID_EXP:
> /* Test for extended capabilities */
> pci_read_config_dword(pdev, PCI_CFG_SPACE_SIZE, &dword);
> - vdev->extended_caps = (dword != 0);
> + vdev->extended_caps = (dword != 0) && (dword != 0xffffffff);
>
> /* length based on version */
> if ((pcie_caps_reg(pdev) & PCI_EXP_FLAGS_VERS) == 1)

If the device is already telling us that cfg_size is less, why use
heuristics to figure out what the return value might be, just put the
whole thing in a 'if (pdev->cfg_size > PCI_CFG_SPACE_SIZE)' test.
Looks like the same should be done for PCI-X. Thanks,

Alex

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-04-28 19:21    [W:0.062 / U:2.748 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site