From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>
To: Martin Kletzander <nert.pinx@gmail.com>
Cc: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, <x86@kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] x86/resctrl: Avoid overflow in MB settings in bw_validate()
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2024 09:27:54 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6324595f-99e6-4eb4-ae40-af1bb765079c@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZvVZoOm7R-dZ4N0_@wheatley.k8r.cz>
Hi Martin,
On 9/26/24 5:54 AM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 10:46:10AM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> On 9/24/24 1:53 AM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
>>> The memory bandwidth value was parsed as unsigned long, but later on
>>> rounded up and stored in u32. That could result in an overflow,
>>> especially if resctrl is mounted with the "mba_MBps" option.
>>>
>>> Switch the variable right to u32 and parse it as such.
>>>
>>> Since the granularity and minimum bandwidth are not used when the
>>> software controller is used (resctrl is mounted with the "mba_MBps"),
>>> skip the rounding up as well and return early from bw_validate().
>>
>> Since this patch will flow via the tip tree the changelog needs
>> to meet the requirements documented in Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.rst
>> Here is an example how the changelog can be when taking into account
>> that context, problem, solution needs to be clearly separated with
>> everything written in imperative mood:
>>
>> The resctrl schemata file supports specifying memory bandwidth
>> associated with the Memory Bandwidth Allocation (MBA) feature
>> via a percentage (this is the default) or bandwidth in MiBps
>> (when resctrl is mounted with the "mba_MBps" option). The allowed
>> range for the bandwidth percentage is from
>> /sys/fs/resctrl/info/MB/min_bandwidth to 100, using a granularity
>> of /sys/fs/resctrl/info/MB/bandwidth_gran. The supported range for
>> the MiBps bandwidth is 0 to U32_MAX.
>>
>> There are two issues with parsing of MiBps memory bandwidth:
>> * The user provided MiBps is mistakenly round up to the granularity
>> that is unique to percentage input.
>> * The user provided MiBps is parsed using unsigned long (thus accepting
>> values up to ULONG_MAX), and then assigned to u32 that could result in
>> overflow.
>>
>> Do not round up the MiBps value and parse user provided bandwidth as
>> the u32 it is intended to be. Use the appropriate kstrtou32() that
>> can detect out of range values.
>>
>
> Great, can I use your commit message then? I wouldn't be able to write
> it as nicely =)
Sure.
>
>>
>> This needs "Fixes" tags. Looks like the following are appropriate:
>> Fixes: 8205a078ba78 ("x86/intel_rdt/mba_sc: Add schemata support")
>> Fixes: 6ce1560d35f6 ("x86/resctrl: Switch over to the resctrl mbps_val list")
>>
>
> It seems to me like this should've been handled in commit 8205a078ba78
> ("x86/intel_rdt/mba_sc: Add schemata support") which added support for
> mba_sc and kept the rounding up of the value while skipping the range
> validation.
Right. That commit additionally suffers from the overflow problem by, after
rounding up the value, assigning the unsigned long result to a u32 (struct
rdt_domain.newctrl).
I added 6ce1560d35f6, not because of the rounding issue, but instead
of it switching the destination of assignment to struct rdt_domain.mbps_val,
which also happens to be a u32.
I included both commits with the goal to help anybody that may be looking
at backporting this fix.
Reinette
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-26 16:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-09-24 8:53 Martin Kletzander
2024-09-24 16:49 ` kernel test robot
2024-09-24 17:46 ` Reinette Chatre
2024-09-26 12:54 ` Martin Kletzander
2024-09-26 16:01 ` Martin Kletzander
2024-09-26 16:27 ` Reinette Chatre [this message]
2024-09-24 18:01 ` kernel test robot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=6324595f-99e6-4eb4-ae40-af1bb765079c@intel.com \
--to=reinette.chatre@intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=fenghua.yu@intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=nert.pinx@gmail.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®