Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] s390x: Add sclp boundary check and fix error priority
On 27.09.19 11:20, Janosch Frank wrote: > On 9/27/19 11:17 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 27.09.19 11:14, Janosch Frank wrote: >>> On 9/27/19 10:51 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: On 26.09.19 13:33, Claudio Imbrenda wrote: > From: Janosch Frank > > * All sclp codes need to be checked for page boundary violations. > * Requests over 4k are not a spec exception. > * Invalid command checking has to be done before the boundary check. Can we split this patch up so we fix one thing at a time? >>> >>> Sure, but we would end up with very small patches. >>> Do you want that? >> >> Why should I say no to easy-to-review, logically consistent, small >> chunks? I have shortcuts for my RB's and ACK's, so I don't have to type >> much ;) >> > > Higher patch count for me, win - win :-) > Now that's the spirit :) -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] s390x: Add sclp boundary check and fix error priority
On 9/27/19 11:17 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 27.09.19 11:14, Janosch Frank wrote: >> On 9/27/19 10:51 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>> On 26.09.19 13:33, Claudio Imbrenda wrote: From: Janosch Frank * All sclp codes need to be checked for page boundary violations. * Requests over 4k are not a spec exception. * Invalid command checking has to be done before the boundary check. >>> >>> Can we split this patch up so we fix one thing at a time? >> >> Sure, but we would end up with very small patches. >> Do you want that? > > Why should I say no to easy-to-review, logically consistent, small > chunks? I have shortcuts for my RB's and ACK's, so I don't have to type > much ;) > Higher patch count for me, win - win :-) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] s390x: Add sclp boundary check and fix error priority
On 27.09.19 11:14, Janosch Frank wrote: > On 9/27/19 10:51 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 26.09.19 13:33, Claudio Imbrenda wrote: >>> From: Janosch Frank >>> >>> * All sclp codes need to be checked for page boundary violations. >>> * Requests over 4k are not a spec exception. >>> * Invalid command checking has to be done before the boundary check. >> >> Can we split this patch up so we fix one thing at a time? > > Sure, but we would end up with very small patches. > Do you want that? Why should I say no to easy-to-review, logically consistent, small chunks? I have shortcuts for my RB's and ACK's, so I don't have to type much ;) -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] s390x: Add sclp boundary check and fix error priority
On 9/27/19 10:51 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 26.09.19 13:33, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
>> From: Janosch Frank
>>
>> * All sclp codes need to be checked for page boundary violations.
>> * Requests over 4k are not a spec exception.
>> * Invalid command checking has to be done before the boundary check.
>
> Can we split this patch up so we fix one thing at a time?
Sure, but we would end up with very small patches.
Do you want that?
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank
>> Reviewed-by: Jason J. Herne
>> ---
>> hw/s390x/event-facility.c | 3 ---
>> hw/s390x/sclp.c | 25 ++---
>> 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/s390x/event-facility.c b/hw/s390x/event-facility.c
>> index 797ecbb..6620569 100644
>> --- a/hw/s390x/event-facility.c
>> +++ b/hw/s390x/event-facility.c
>> @@ -377,9 +377,6 @@ static void command_handler(SCLPEventFacility *ef, SCCB
>> *sccb, uint64_t code)
>> case SCLP_CMD_WRITE_EVENT_MASK:
>> write_event_mask(ef, sccb);
>> break;
>> -default:
>> -sccb->h.response_code = cpu_to_be16(SCLP_RC_INVALID_SCLP_COMMAND);
>> -break;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/s390x/sclp.c b/hw/s390x/sclp.c
>> index fac7c3b..76feac8 100644
>> --- a/hw/s390x/sclp.c
>> +++ b/hw/s390x/sclp.c
>> @@ -213,14 +213,33 @@ int sclp_service_call(CPUS390XState *env, uint64_t
>> sccb, uint32_t code)
>> cpu_physical_memory_read(sccb, &work_sccb, sccb_len);
>>
>> /* Valid sccb sizes */
>> -if (be16_to_cpu(work_sccb.h.length) < sizeof(SCCBHeader) ||
>> -be16_to_cpu(work_sccb.h.length) > SCCB_SIZE) {
>> +if (be16_to_cpu(work_sccb.h.length) < sizeof(SCCBHeader)) {
>> r = -PGM_SPECIFICATION;
>> goto out;
>> }
>>
>> -sclp_c->execute(sclp, &work_sccb, code);
>> +switch (code & SCLP_CMD_CODE_MASK) {
>> +case SCLP_CMDW_READ_SCP_INFO:
>> +case SCLP_CMDW_READ_SCP_INFO_FORCED:
>> +case SCLP_CMDW_READ_CPU_INFO:
>> +case SCLP_CMDW_CONFIGURE_IOA:
>> +case SCLP_CMDW_DECONFIGURE_IOA:
>> +case SCLP_CMD_READ_EVENT_DATA:
>> +case SCLP_CMD_WRITE_EVENT_DATA:
>> +case SCLP_CMD_WRITE_EVENT_MASK:
>> +break;
>> +default:
>> +work_sccb.h.response_code =
>> cpu_to_be16(SCLP_RC_INVALID_SCLP_COMMAND);
>> +goto out_write;
>> +}
>>
>> +if ((sccb + work_sccb.h.length) > ((sccb & PAGE_MASK) + PAGE_SIZE)) {
>> +work_sccb.h.response_code =
>> cpu_to_be16(SCLP_RC_SCCB_BOUNDARY_VIOLATION);
>> +goto out_write;
>> +}
>> +
>> +sclp_c->execute(sclp, &work_sccb, code);
>> +out_write:
>> cpu_physical_memory_write(sccb, &work_sccb,
>>be16_to_cpu(work_sccb.h.length));
>>
>>
>
>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] s390x: Add sclp boundary check and fix error priority
On 26.09.19 13:33, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> From: Janosch Frank
>
> * All sclp codes need to be checked for page boundary violations.
> * Requests over 4k are not a spec exception.
> * Invalid command checking has to be done before the boundary check.
Can we split this patch up so we fix one thing at a time?
>
> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank
> Reviewed-by: Jason J. Herne
> ---
> hw/s390x/event-facility.c | 3 ---
> hw/s390x/sclp.c | 25 ++---
> 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/s390x/event-facility.c b/hw/s390x/event-facility.c
> index 797ecbb..6620569 100644
> --- a/hw/s390x/event-facility.c
> +++ b/hw/s390x/event-facility.c
> @@ -377,9 +377,6 @@ static void command_handler(SCLPEventFacility *ef, SCCB
> *sccb, uint64_t code)
> case SCLP_CMD_WRITE_EVENT_MASK:
> write_event_mask(ef, sccb);
> break;
> -default:
> -sccb->h.response_code = cpu_to_be16(SCLP_RC_INVALID_SCLP_COMMAND);
> -break;
> }
> }
>
> diff --git a/hw/s390x/sclp.c b/hw/s390x/sclp.c
> index fac7c3b..76feac8 100644
> --- a/hw/s390x/sclp.c
> +++ b/hw/s390x/sclp.c
> @@ -213,14 +213,33 @@ int sclp_service_call(CPUS390XState *env, uint64_t
> sccb, uint32_t code)
> cpu_physical_memory_read(sccb, &work_sccb, sccb_len);
>
> /* Valid sccb sizes */
> -if (be16_to_cpu(work_sccb.h.length) < sizeof(SCCBHeader) ||
> -be16_to_cpu(work_sccb.h.length) > SCCB_SIZE) {
> +if (be16_to_cpu(work_sccb.h.length) < sizeof(SCCBHeader)) {
> r = -PGM_SPECIFICATION;
> goto out;
> }
>
> -sclp_c->execute(sclp, &work_sccb, code);
> +switch (code & SCLP_CMD_CODE_MASK) {
> +case SCLP_CMDW_READ_SCP_INFO:
> +case SCLP_CMDW_READ_SCP_INFO_FORCED:
> +case SCLP_CMDW_READ_CPU_INFO:
> +case SCLP_CMDW_CONFIGURE_IOA:
> +case SCLP_CMDW_DECONFIGURE_IOA:
> +case SCLP_CMD_READ_EVENT_DATA:
> +case SCLP_CMD_WRITE_EVENT_DATA:
> +case SCLP_CMD_WRITE_EVENT_MASK:
> +break;
> +default:
> +work_sccb.h.response_code =
> cpu_to_be16(SCLP_RC_INVALID_SCLP_COMMAND);
> +goto out_write;
> +}
>
> +if ((sccb + work_sccb.h.length) > ((sccb & PAGE_MASK) + PAGE_SIZE)) {
> +work_sccb.h.response_code =
> cpu_to_be16(SCLP_RC_SCCB_BOUNDARY_VIOLATION);
> +goto out_write;
> +}
> +
> +sclp_c->execute(sclp, &work_sccb, code);
> +out_write:
> cpu_physical_memory_write(sccb, &work_sccb,
>be16_to_cpu(work_sccb.h.length));
>
>
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] s390x: Add sclp boundary check and fix error priority
On 26/09/2019 13.33, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> From: Janosch Frank
>
> * All sclp codes need to be checked for page boundary violations.
> * Requests over 4k are not a spec exception.
> * Invalid command checking has to be done before the boundary check.
>
> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank
> Reviewed-by: Jason J. Herne
> ---
> hw/s390x/event-facility.c | 3 ---
> hw/s390x/sclp.c | 25 ++---
> 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/s390x/event-facility.c b/hw/s390x/event-facility.c
> index 797ecbb..6620569 100644
> --- a/hw/s390x/event-facility.c
> +++ b/hw/s390x/event-facility.c
> @@ -377,9 +377,6 @@ static void command_handler(SCLPEventFacility *ef, SCCB
> *sccb, uint64_t code)
> case SCLP_CMD_WRITE_EVENT_MASK:
> write_event_mask(ef, sccb);
> break;
> -default:
> -sccb->h.response_code = cpu_to_be16(SCLP_RC_INVALID_SCLP_COMMAND);
> -break;
> }
> }
>
> diff --git a/hw/s390x/sclp.c b/hw/s390x/sclp.c
> index fac7c3b..76feac8 100644
> --- a/hw/s390x/sclp.c
> +++ b/hw/s390x/sclp.c
> @@ -213,14 +213,33 @@ int sclp_service_call(CPUS390XState *env, uint64_t
> sccb, uint32_t code)
> cpu_physical_memory_read(sccb, &work_sccb, sccb_len);
>
> /* Valid sccb sizes */
> -if (be16_to_cpu(work_sccb.h.length) < sizeof(SCCBHeader) ||
> -be16_to_cpu(work_sccb.h.length) > SCCB_SIZE) {
> +if (be16_to_cpu(work_sccb.h.length) < sizeof(SCCBHeader)) {
> r = -PGM_SPECIFICATION;
> goto out;
> }
>
> -sclp_c->execute(sclp, &work_sccb, code);
> +switch (code & SCLP_CMD_CODE_MASK) {
> +case SCLP_CMDW_READ_SCP_INFO:
> +case SCLP_CMDW_READ_SCP_INFO_FORCED:
> +case SCLP_CMDW_READ_CPU_INFO:
> +case SCLP_CMDW_CONFIGURE_IOA:
> +case SCLP_CMDW_DECONFIGURE_IOA:
> +case SCLP_CMD_READ_EVENT_DATA:
> +case SCLP_CMD_WRITE_EVENT_DATA:
> +case SCLP_CMD_WRITE_EVENT_MASK:
> +break;
> +default:
> +work_sccb.h.response_code =
> cpu_to_be16(SCLP_RC_INVALID_SCLP_COMMAND);
> +goto out_write;
> +}
>
> +if ((sccb + work_sccb.h.length) > ((sccb & PAGE_MASK) + PAGE_SIZE)) {
I think you likely miss a be16_to_cpu() around work_sccb.h.length here?
> +work_sccb.h.response_code =
> cpu_to_be16(SCLP_RC_SCCB_BOUNDARY_VIOLATION);
> +goto out_write;
> +}
> +
> +sclp_c->execute(sclp, &work_sccb, code);
> +out_write:
> cpu_physical_memory_write(sccb, &work_sccb,
>be16_to_cpu(work_sccb.h.length));
At least here it is swapped ^
Thomas
