linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/9] KVM: MMU: introduce the framework to check reserved bits on sptes

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 4 Aug 2015 21:34:38 +0800
From:	Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:	gleb@...nel.org, mtosatti@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] KVM: MMU: introduce the framework to check reserved
 bits on sptes



On 08/04/2015 09:23 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 04/08/2015 15:10, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>>>
>>> This should be cpu_has_nx, I think.
>>
>> cpu_has_nx() checks the feature on host CPU, however, this is the shadow
>> page table which completely follow guest's features.
>>
>> E.g, if guest does not execution-protect the physical page, then
>> KVM does not do it either.
>
> That's just true for current code.  In principle you could add a memslot
> flag for KVM_MEMSLOT_NO_EXECUTE, then NX would be true on an spte but
> not on a PTE.

Yes, i agree. I would like to keep it as strict as possible to catch
potential bugs. We can relax it while KVM_MEMSLOT_NO_EXECUTE is being
developed.

>
>>>
>>>> +                guest_cpuid_has_gbpages(vcpu),
>>>
>>> This should be cpu_has_gbpages.
>>
>> E.g, if guest does not use 1G page size, it's also not used in shadow page
>> table.
>
> However, bit 7 in the shadow PDPTE is not reserved.  If you're not
> testing "is this bit reserved" but rather "should this bit be always
> zero" in the SPTE, then checking guest_cpuid is okay.  But in that case
> shadow_rsvd_check is really more like shadow_always_zero_check.

Yes, it is not reserved in hardware's point of view. shadow_always_zero_check()
seems a more meaningful name, thanks for your suggestion. :)

>
>>>
>>>> is_pse(vcpu));
>>>
>>> This should be cpu_has_pse.
>>
>> E.g, guest does no use 4M page size, then KVM does not use it either.
>
> Right, it should always be true, not cpu_has_pse, because PAE and 64-bit
> page tables always support huge (2M) pages.  Or as above, if you're
> testing "should this bit be always zero" then it's a different story.

Yeah, i will rename the function.

--
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/