[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] x86/domctl: don't imply I/O port permissions from I/O port mapping


  • To: Roger Pau Monné <roger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 17:34:53 +0200
  • Authentication-results: eu.smtp.expurgate.cloud; dkim=pass header.s=google header.d=suse.com header.i="@suse.com" header.h="Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:Autocrypt:From:Content-Language:References:Cc:To:Subject:User-Agent:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID"
  • Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
  • Cc: Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Teddy Astie <teddy.astie@xxxxxxxxxx>, Oleksii Kurochko <oleksii.kurochko@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:35:06 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 21.07.2026 17:07, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 04:57:36PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 21.07.2026 16:49, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 03:54:04PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> Rather than granting permissions when mapping (an operation that DM-s are
>>>> allowed to carry out, while they can't invoke ioport-permission), check
>>>> whether permissions actually were granted when adding a mapping. This then
>>>> also allows relaxing the necessary locking.
>>>>
>>>> While no longer granting permissions upon mapping is "only" at risk of
>>>> breaking guests, no longer revoking permissions upon unmapping strictly
>>>> requires callers to additionally invoke XEN_DOMCTL_ioport_permission. Or
>>>> else a security issue would arise. In-tree code already does so.
>>>>
>>>> While there switch to using %pd in the two log messages.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 192c4dabc344 ("domctl and p2m changes for PCI passthru")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> It's difficult to not think about someone appearing in 3 or 4 years
>>> complaining that this change in behavior has caused them a security
>>> issue, but I do agree that the previous behavior was inconsistent at
>>> best:
>>
>> A positive aspect here is that the similar change for MMIO went without
>> any fallout, as far as I'm aware.
>>
>>> Acked-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Thanks, but ...
>>
>>> However you need to bump XEN_DOMCTL_INTERFACE_VERSION to note the ABI
>>> change as we are in 4.23 now.
>>
>> ... there's no interface change here. A bump therefore won't buy us
>> anything. I'm hesitant to take your ack as long as we disagree here.
> 
> It's not an interface change, but it's a change in behavior of an
> existing hypercall in a security-relevant way, so people would
> generally need to be aware of it, just in case.

But the interface version bump won't necessarily make anyone aware. Things
will continue to build as before, and there's also no binary incompatibility.
The best way of making people aware is the ChangeLog entry that iirc you had
asked for (and that's now there).

Jan



 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.