| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 23:22:28 -0400
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Bandan Das <bsd@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
CC: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Check for host supported fields in shadow vmcs
Il 19/04/2014 19:34, Bandan Das ha scritto:
>
> We track shadow vmcs fields through two static lists,
> one for read only fields and another for r/w. However, with
> addition of new vmcs fields, not all fields may be supported on
> all hosts. If so, copy_vmcs12_to_shadow() trying to vmwrite on older
> hosts will result in a vmwrite error. For example, commit
> 36be0b9deb23161 introduced GUEST_BNDCFGS, which is not supported
> for all processors. Create new lists based out of intersection of
> static lists and host support and use them for tracking
> shadow fields instead
>
> Signed-off-by: Bandan Das <bsd@...hat.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 98 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 79 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> index 7bed3e3..ffc2232 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> @@ -502,7 +502,10 @@ static inline struct vcpu_vmx *to_vmx(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> #define FIELD64(number, name) [number] = VMCS12_OFFSET(name), \
> [number##_HIGH] = VMCS12_OFFSET(name)+4
>
> -
> +/*
> + * Do not use the two lists below directly
> + * Use vmcs_shadow_fields instead
> + */
> static const unsigned long shadow_read_only_fields[] = {
> /*
> * We do NOT shadow fields that are modified when L0
> @@ -526,8 +529,6 @@ static const unsigned long shadow_read_only_fields[] = {
> GUEST_LINEAR_ADDRESS,
> GUEST_PHYSICAL_ADDRESS
> };
> -static const int max_shadow_read_only_fields =
> - ARRAY_SIZE(shadow_read_only_fields);
>
> static const unsigned long shadow_read_write_fields[] = {
> GUEST_RIP,
> @@ -558,8 +559,18 @@ static const unsigned long shadow_read_write_fields[] = {
> HOST_FS_SELECTOR,
> HOST_GS_SELECTOR
> };
> -static const int max_shadow_read_write_fields =
> - ARRAY_SIZE(shadow_read_write_fields);
Can we just remove the "const" here, and compress the arrays down
similar to what kvm_init_msr_list does.
> +/* If new shadow fields are added, these should be modified appropriately */
> +#define VMCS_MAX_RO_FIELDS 10
> +#define VMCS_MAX_RW_FIELDS 30
> +
> +struct vmcs_shadow_fields_data {
> + int shadow_ro_fields_len;
> + int shadow_rw_fields_len;
> + unsigned long shadow_read_only_fields[VMCS_MAX_RO_FIELDS];
> + unsigned long shadow_read_write_fields[VMCS_MAX_RW_FIELDS];
> +};
> +static struct vmcs_shadow_fields_data vmcs_shadow_fields;
>
> static const unsigned short vmcs_field_to_offset_table[] = {
> FIELD(VIRTUAL_PROCESSOR_ID, virtual_processor_id),
> @@ -3027,6 +3038,56 @@ static __init int alloc_kvm_area(void)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static void cleanup_vmcs_shadow_fields(void)
> +{
> + memset(&vmcs_shadow_fields, 0,
> + sizeof(struct vmcs_shadow_fields_data));
> +}
> +
> +static void init_vmcs_shadow_fields(void)
> +{
> + struct vmcs_shadow_fields_data *vmcs_ptr = &vmcs_shadow_fields;
> + int max_shadow_read_write_fields = ARRAY_SIZE(shadow_read_write_fields);
> + int max_shadow_read_only_fields = ARRAY_SIZE(shadow_read_only_fields);
> + int i, j;
> +
> + for (i = 0, j = 0; i < max_shadow_read_write_fields; i++) {
> + if (i >= VMCS_MAX_RW_FIELDS) {
> + WARN(1, "Shadow RW fields index out of bounds\n");
> + break;
> + }
> + if ((shadow_read_write_fields[i] == GUEST_BNDCFGS) &&
> + !vmx_mpx_supported())
> + continue;
Please code this as a "switch" statement for easier future
extensibility. Again, this would be similar to kvm_init_msr_list.
How did you find this? Do you have access to a machine with shadow
VMCS? Is that Ivy Bridge Xeon E5 or does some lower-end Haswell have it?
Paolo
> + vmcs_ptr->shadow_read_write_fields[j++] =
> + shadow_read_write_fields[i];
> + vmcs_ptr->shadow_rw_fields_len++;
> + }
> +
> + for (i = 0, j = 0; i < max_shadow_read_only_fields; i++) {
> + if (i >= VMCS_MAX_RO_FIELDS) {
> + WARN(1, "Shadow RO fields index out of bounds\n");
> + break;
> + }
> + vmcs_ptr->shadow_read_only_fields[j++] =
> + shadow_read_only_fields[i];
> + vmcs_ptr->shadow_ro_fields_len++;
> + }
> +
> + /* shadowed read/write fields */
> + for (i = 0; i < vmcs_ptr->shadow_rw_fields_len; i++) {
> + clear_bit(vmcs_ptr->shadow_read_write_fields[i],
> + vmx_vmwrite_bitmap);
> + clear_bit(vmcs_ptr->shadow_read_write_fields[i],
> + vmx_vmread_bitmap);
> + }
> + /* shadowed read only fields */
> + for (i = 0; i < vmcs_ptr->shadow_ro_fields_len; i++)
> + clear_bit(vmcs_ptr->shadow_read_only_fields[i],
> + vmx_vmread_bitmap);
> +
> +}
> +
> static __init int hardware_setup(void)
> {
> if (setup_vmcs_config(&vmcs_config) < 0)
> @@ -3039,6 +3100,8 @@ static __init int hardware_setup(void)
> enable_vpid = 0;
> if (!cpu_has_vmx_shadow_vmcs())
> enable_shadow_vmcs = 0;
> + if (enable_shadow_vmcs)
> + init_vmcs_shadow_fields();
>
> if (!cpu_has_vmx_ept() ||
> !cpu_has_vmx_ept_4levels()) {
> @@ -3084,6 +3147,8 @@ static __init int hardware_setup(void)
>
> static __exit void hardware_unsetup(void)
> {
> + if (enable_shadow_vmcs)
> + cleanup_vmcs_shadow_fields();
> free_kvm_area();
> }
>
> @@ -6159,8 +6224,9 @@ static void copy_shadow_to_vmcs12(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx)
> unsigned long field;
> u64 field_value;
> struct vmcs *shadow_vmcs = vmx->nested.current_shadow_vmcs;
> - const unsigned long *fields = shadow_read_write_fields;
> - const int num_fields = max_shadow_read_write_fields;
> + const unsigned long *fields =
> + vmcs_shadow_fields.shadow_read_write_fields;
> + const int num_fields = vmcs_shadow_fields.shadow_rw_fields_len;
>
> vmcs_load(shadow_vmcs);
>
> @@ -6189,13 +6255,15 @@ static void copy_shadow_to_vmcs12(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx)
>
> static void copy_vmcs12_to_shadow(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx)
> {
> + struct vmcs_shadow_fields_data *ptr = &vmcs_shadow_fields;
> +
> const unsigned long *fields[] = {
> - shadow_read_write_fields,
> - shadow_read_only_fields
> + ptr->shadow_read_write_fields,
> + ptr->shadow_read_only_fields
> };
> const int max_fields[] = {
> - max_shadow_read_write_fields,
> - max_shadow_read_only_fields
> + ptr->shadow_rw_fields_len,
> + ptr->shadow_ro_fields_len
> };
> int i, q;
> unsigned long field;
> @@ -8817,14 +8885,6 @@ static int __init vmx_init(void)
>
> memset(vmx_vmread_bitmap, 0xff, PAGE_SIZE);
> memset(vmx_vmwrite_bitmap, 0xff, PAGE_SIZE);
> - /* shadowed read/write fields */
> - for (i = 0; i < max_shadow_read_write_fields; i++) {
> - clear_bit(shadow_read_write_fields[i], vmx_vmwrite_bitmap);
> - clear_bit(shadow_read_write_fields[i], vmx_vmread_bitmap);
> - }
> - /* shadowed read only fields */
> - for (i = 0; i < max_shadow_read_only_fields; i++)
> - clear_bit(shadow_read_only_fields[i], vmx_vmread_bitmap);
>
> /*
> * Allow direct access to the PC debug port (it is often used for I/O
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists