[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160421152406.1ed89bec@thinkpad-w530>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 15:24:06 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <dahi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
Cc: Greg Kurz <gkurz@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, james.hogan@...tec.com,
mingo@...hat.com, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, qemu-ppc@...gnu.org,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] KVM: remove buggy vcpu id check on vcpu creation
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 17:44:54 +0200
> Greg Kurz <gkurz@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > Commit 338c7dbadd26 ("KVM: Improve create VCPU parameter (CVE-2013-4587)")
> > introduced a check to prevent potential kernel memory corruption in case
> > the vcpu id is too great.
> >
> > Unfortunately this check assumes vcpu ids grow in sequence with a common
> > difference of 1, which is wrong: archs are free to use vcpu id as they fit.
> > For example, QEMU originated vcpu ids for PowerPC cpus running in boot3s_hv
> > mode, can grow with a common difference of 2, 4 or 8: if KVM_MAX_VCPUS is
> > 1024, guests may be limited down to 128 vcpus on POWER8.
> >
> > This means the check does not belong here and should be moved to some arch
> > specific function: kvm_arch_vcpu_create() looks like a good candidate.
> >
> > ARM and s390 already have such a check.
> >
> > I could not spot any path in the PowerPC or common KVM code where a vcpu
> > id is used as described in the above commit: I believe PowerPC can live
> > without this check.
> >
> > In the end, this patch simply moves the check to MIPS and x86.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kurz <gkurz@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > v3: use ERR_PTR()
> >
> > arch/mips/kvm/mips.c | 7 ++++++-
> > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 3 +++
> > virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 3 ---
> > 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
>
> Acked-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
>
The existing s390 check looks sane to me, too!
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists