On 2020/7/21 下午9:46, Li Qiang wrote:
Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> 于2020年7月21日周二 下午9:21写道：
On 2020/7/21 下午8:31, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 at 09:36, Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> wrote:
I think the point is to make DMA to MMIO work as real hardware.
I wouldn't care to give a 100% guarantee that asking a real
h/w device to DMA to itself didn't cause it to misbehave :-)
It's more likely to happen-to-work because the DMA engine bit
of a real h/w device is going to be decoupled somewhat from
the respond-to-memory-transactions-for-registers logic, but
it probably wasn't something the designers were actively
thinking about either...
I think some device want such peer to peer transactions:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/driver-api/pci/p2pdma.rst
For
e1000e and other networking devices we need make sure such DMA doesn't
break anything.
Yeah, this is the interesting part for QEMU. How should we
structure devices that do DMA so that we can be sure that
the device emulation at least doesn't crash? We could have
a rule that all devices that do DMA must always postpone
all of that DMA to a bottom-half, but that's a lot of
refactoring of a lot of device code...
It looks to me the issue happens only for device with loopback
IMO I think this is not related-loopback.
It happens when the guest write the MMIO address to the device's
DMA-related registers.
The one we see UAF occurs in loopback device because the same
structure uses in re-entry.
But we can't say there are no issue for non-loopback device.
Yes.
Simply git grep loopback in hw/net tells me we probably need only to
audit dp8393x and rtl8139.
Qiang, want to help to audit those devices?
No problem. Once I finish the e1000e patch I will try to audit those and
also try to audit some no-loopback device re-entry issue.
Thanks.
Thanks,
Li Qiang
Thanks
thanks
-- PMM
