linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] KVM: remove buggy vcpu id check on vcpu creation

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160421174956.1049e0a5@bahia.huguette.org>
Date:	Thu, 21 Apr 2016 17:49:56 +0200
From:	Greg Kurz <gkurz@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
Cc:	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,
	Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
	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 Thu, 21 Apr 2016 17:29:16 +0200
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com> wrote:

> 2016-04-21 13:29+0200, Greg Kurz:
> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 20:29:09 +0200
> > Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com> wrote:  
> >> 2016-04-20 17:44+0200, Greg Kurz:  
> >> > 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.    
> >> 
> >> The only problematic path I see is kvm_get_vcpu_by_id(), which returns
> >> NULL for any id above KVM_MAX_VCPUS.  
> > 
> > Oops my bad, I started to work on a 4.4 tree and I missed this check brought
> > by commit c896939f7cff (KVM: use heuristic for fast VCPU lookup by id).
> > 
> > But again, I believe the check is wrong there also: the changelog just mentions
> > this is a fastpath for the usual case where "VCPU ids match the array index"...
> > why does the patch add a NULL return path if id >= KVM_MAX_VCPUS ?  
> 
> (The patch had to check id >= KVM_MAX_VCPUS for sanity and there could
>  not be a VCPU with that index according to the spec, so it made a
>  shortcut to the correct NULL result ...)
> 

With the spec in mind, you're right... the confusion comes from the fact
that powerpc decided to use bigger vcpu ids a long time ago but nobody
cared to document that.

> >> Second issue is that Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt says
> >>   4.7 KVM_CREATE_VCPU
> >>   [...]
> >>   This API adds a vcpu to a virtual machine.  The vcpu id is a small
> >>   integer in the range [0, max_vcpus).
> >>   
> > 
> > Yeah and I find the meaning of max_vcpus is unclear.
> > 
> > Here it is considered as a limit for vcpu id, but if you look at the code,
> > KVM_MAX_VCPUS is also used as a limit for the number of vcpus:
> > 
> > virt/kvm/kvm_main.c:    if (atomic_read(&kvm->online_vcpus) == KVM_MAX_VCPUS) {  
> 
> I agree.  Naming of KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS and KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS would make
> you think that online_vcpus limit interpretation is the correct one, but
> the code is conflicted.
> 
> >> so we'd remove those two lines and change the API too.  The change would
> >> be somewhat backward compatible, but doesn't PowerPC use high vcpu_id
> >> just because KVM is lacking an API to set DT ID?  
> > 
> > This is related to a limitation when running in book3s_hv mode with cpus
> > that support SMT (multiple HW threads): all HW threads within a core
> > cannot be running in different guests at the same time. 
> > 
> > We solve this by using a vcpu numbering scheme as follows:
> > 
> > vcpu_id[N] = (N * thread_per_core_guest) / threads_per_core_host + N % threads_per_core_guest
> > 
> > where N means "the Nth vcpu presented to the guest". This allows to have groups of vcpus
> > that can be scheduled to run on the same real core.
> > 
> > So, in the "worst" case where we want to run a guest with 1 thread/core and the host
> > has 8 threads/core, we will need the vcpu_id limit to be 8*KVM_MAX_VCPUS.  
> 
> I see, thanks.  Accommodating existing users seems like an acceptable
> excuse to change the API.
> 
> >> x86 (APIC ID) is affected by this and ARM (MP ID) probably too.
> >>   
> > 
> > x86 is limited to KVM_MAX_VCPUS (== 255) vcpus: it won't be affected if we also
> > patch kvm_get_vcpu_by_id() like suggested above.  
> 
> x86 vcpu_id encodes APIC ID and APIC ID encodes CPU topology by
> reserving blocks of bits for socket/core/thread, so if core or thread
> count isn't a power of two, then the set of valid APIC IDs is sparse,
> but max id is still limited by 255, so the effective maximum VCPU count
> is lower.
> 
> x86 doesn't support APIC ID over 255 yet, though, so this change
> wouldn't change a thing in practice. :)
> 

Thanks for the details !

So we're good ? Whose tree can carry these patches ?

Cheers.

--
Greg