bus: mhi: host: Add alignment check for event ring read pointer

  Though we do check the event ring read pointer by "is_valid_ring_ptr"
to make sure it is in the buffer range, but there is another risk the
pointer may be not aligned.  Since we are expecting event ring elements
are 128 bits(struct mhi_tre) aligned, an unaligned read pointer could lead
to multiple issues like DoS or ring buffer memory corruption.

So add a alignment check for event ring read pointer.

Signed-off-by: Krishna chaitanya chundru <quic_krichai@quicinc.com>
---
 drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)


---
base-commit: 71e68e182e382e951d6248bccc3c960dcec5a718
change-id: 20231013-alignment_check-c013f509d24a

Best regards,
  

On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 03:13:06PM +0530, Krishna chaitanya chundru wrote:
> Though we do check the event ring read pointer by "is_valid_ring_ptr"
> to make sure it is in the buffer range, but there is another risk the
> pointer may be not aligned.  Since we are expecting event ring elements
> are 128 bits(struct mhi_tre) aligned, an unaligned read pointer could lead
> to multiple issues like DoS or ring buffer memory corruption.
> 
> So add a alignment check for event ring read pointer.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Krishna chaitanya chundru <quic_krichai@quicinc.com>

Reviewed-by: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>

Regards,
Bjorn

> ---
>  drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c b/drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c
> index 499590437e9b..c907bbb67fb2 100644
> --- a/drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c
> +++ b/drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c
> @@ -268,7 +268,7 @@ static void mhi_del_ring_element(struct mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl,
>  
>  static bool is_valid_ring_ptr(struct mhi_ring *ring, dma_addr_t addr)
>  {
> -	return addr >= ring->iommu_base && addr < ring->iommu_base + ring->len;
> +	return addr >= ring->iommu_base && addr < ring->iommu_base + ring->len && addr % 16 == 0;
>  }
>  
>  int mhi_destroy_device(struct device *dev, void *data)
> 
> ---
> base-commit: 71e68e182e382e951d6248bccc3c960dcec5a718
> change-id: 20231013-alignment_check-c013f509d24a
> 
> Best regards,
> -- 
> Krishna chaitanya chundru <quic_krichai@quicinc.com>
>
  

On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 03:13:06PM +0530, Krishna chaitanya chundru wrote:
> Though we do check the event ring read pointer by "is_valid_ring_ptr"
> to make sure it is in the buffer range, but there is another risk the
> pointer may be not aligned.  Since we are expecting event ring elements
> are 128 bits(struct mhi_tre) aligned, an unaligned read pointer could lead

"mhi_tre" got renamed to "mhi_ring_element"

> to multiple issues like DoS or ring buffer memory corruption.
> 
> So add a alignment check for event ring read pointer.
> 

Since this is a potential fix, you should add the fixes tag and CC stable.

> Signed-off-by: Krishna chaitanya chundru <quic_krichai@quicinc.com>
> ---
>  drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c b/drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c
> index 499590437e9b..c907bbb67fb2 100644
> --- a/drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c
> +++ b/drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c
> @@ -268,7 +268,7 @@ static void mhi_del_ring_element(struct mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl,
>  
>  static bool is_valid_ring_ptr(struct mhi_ring *ring, dma_addr_t addr)
>  {
> -	return addr >= ring->iommu_base && addr < ring->iommu_base + ring->len;
> +	return addr >= ring->iommu_base && addr < ring->iommu_base + ring->len && addr % 16 == 0;

How about,

!(addr % 16)

- Mani

>  }
>  
>  int mhi_destroy_device(struct device *dev, void *data)
> 
> ---
> base-commit: 71e68e182e382e951d6248bccc3c960dcec5a718
> change-id: 20231013-alignment_check-c013f509d24a
> 
> Best regards,
> -- 
> Krishna chaitanya chundru <quic_krichai@quicinc.com>
>
  

On 10/27/2023 7:09 AM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 03:13:06PM +0530, Krishna chaitanya chundru wrote:
>> Though we do check the event ring read pointer by "is_valid_ring_ptr"
>> to make sure it is in the buffer range, but there is another risk the
>> pointer may be not aligned.  Since we are expecting event ring elements
>> are 128 bits(struct mhi_tre) aligned, an unaligned read pointer could lead
> 
> "mhi_tre" got renamed to "mhi_ring_element"
> 
>> to multiple issues like DoS or ring buffer memory corruption.
>>
>> So add a alignment check for event ring read pointer.
>>
> 
> Since this is a potential fix, you should add the fixes tag and CC stable.
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Krishna chaitanya chundru <quic_krichai@quicinc.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c b/drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c
>> index 499590437e9b..c907bbb67fb2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c
>> +++ b/drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c
>> @@ -268,7 +268,7 @@ static void mhi_del_ring_element(struct mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl,
>>   
>>   static bool is_valid_ring_ptr(struct mhi_ring *ring, dma_addr_t addr)
>>   {
>> -	return addr >= ring->iommu_base && addr < ring->iommu_base + ring->len;
>> +	return addr >= ring->iommu_base && addr < ring->iommu_base + ring->len && addr % 16 == 0;
> 
> How about,
> 
> !(addr % 16)

We are guaranteed that the ring allocation is 16 byte aligned, right?

I think using "struct mhi_ring_element" instead of "16" would be better.

I'm also thinking that perhaps doing a bit-wise & with a mask would be 
better than the % operator.  Not only is that how these alignment checks 
seem to normally be done elsewhere, but this check is in a critical 
patch for the MHI stack.

-Jeff
  

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 08:19:44AM -0600, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
> On 10/27/2023 7:09 AM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 03:13:06PM +0530, Krishna chaitanya chundru wrote:
> > > Though we do check the event ring read pointer by "is_valid_ring_ptr"
> > > to make sure it is in the buffer range, but there is another risk the
> > > pointer may be not aligned.  Since we are expecting event ring elements
> > > are 128 bits(struct mhi_tre) aligned, an unaligned read pointer could lead
> > 
> > "mhi_tre" got renamed to "mhi_ring_element"
> > 
> > > to multiple issues like DoS or ring buffer memory corruption.
> > > 
> > > So add a alignment check for event ring read pointer.
> > > 
> > 
> > Since this is a potential fix, you should add the fixes tag and CC stable.
> > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Krishna chaitanya chundru <quic_krichai@quicinc.com>
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c | 2 +-
> > >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c b/drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c
> > > index 499590437e9b..c907bbb67fb2 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c
> > > @@ -268,7 +268,7 @@ static void mhi_del_ring_element(struct mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl,
> > >   static bool is_valid_ring_ptr(struct mhi_ring *ring, dma_addr_t addr)
> > >   {
> > > -	return addr >= ring->iommu_base && addr < ring->iommu_base + ring->len;
> > > +	return addr >= ring->iommu_base && addr < ring->iommu_base + ring->len && addr % 16 == 0;
> > 
> > How about,
> > 
> > !(addr % 16)
> 
> We are guaranteed that the ring allocation is 16 byte aligned, right?
> 
> I think using "struct mhi_ring_element" instead of "16" would be better.
> 
> I'm also thinking that perhaps doing a bit-wise & with a mask would be
> better than the % operator.  Not only is that how these alignment checks
> seem to normally be done elsewhere, but this check is in a critical patch
> for the MHI stack.
> 

Yes, both of your suggestions sounds good to me.

Chaitanya, please use below check:

	!(addr & (sizeof(struct mhi_ring_element) - 1))

- Mani

> -Jeff
>
  

On 10/29/2023 12:56 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 08:19:44AM -0600, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
>> On 10/27/2023 7:09 AM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 03:13:06PM +0530, Krishna chaitanya chundru wrote:
>>>> Though we do check the event ring read pointer by "is_valid_ring_ptr"
>>>> to make sure it is in the buffer range, but there is another risk the
>>>> pointer may be not aligned.  Since we are expecting event ring elements
>>>> are 128 bits(struct mhi_tre) aligned, an unaligned read pointer could lead
>>> "mhi_tre" got renamed to "mhi_ring_element"
>>>
>>>> to multiple issues like DoS or ring buffer memory corruption.
>>>>
>>>> So add a alignment check for event ring read pointer.
>>>>
>>> Since this is a potential fix, you should add the fixes tag and CC stable.
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Krishna chaitanya chundru <quic_krichai@quicinc.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c | 2 +-
>>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c b/drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c
>>>> index 499590437e9b..c907bbb67fb2 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/bus/mhi/host/main.c
>>>> @@ -268,7 +268,7 @@ static void mhi_del_ring_element(struct mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl,
>>>>    static bool is_valid_ring_ptr(struct mhi_ring *ring, dma_addr_t addr)
>>>>    {
>>>> -	return addr >= ring->iommu_base && addr < ring->iommu_base + ring->len;
>>>> +	return addr >= ring->iommu_base && addr < ring->iommu_base + ring->len && addr % 16 == 0;
>>> How about,
>>>
>>> !(addr % 16)
>> We are guaranteed that the ring allocation is 16 byte aligned, right?
>>
>> I think using "struct mhi_ring_element" instead of "16" would be better.
>>
>> I'm also thinking that perhaps doing a bit-wise & with a mask would be
>> better than the % operator.  Not only is that how these alignment checks
>> seem to normally be done elsewhere, but this check is in a critical patch
>> for the MHI stack.
>>
> Yes, both of your suggestions sounds good to me.
>
> Chaitanya, please use below check:
>
> 	!(addr & (sizeof(struct mhi_ring_element) - 1))
>
> - Mani

I will update in the next patch.

- Krishna Chaitanya.

>> -Jeff
>>