linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: x86: avoid simultaneous queueing of both IRQ and SMI

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]

Date:	Wed, 1 Jun 2016 20:06:14 +0200
From:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:	Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: x86: avoid simultaneous queueing of both IRQ and
 SMI



On 01/06/2016 18:40, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> 2016-06-01 14:35+0200, Paolo Bonzini:
>> If the processor exits to KVM while delivering an interrupt,
>> the hypervisor then requeues the interrupt for the next vmentry.
>> Trying to enter SMM in this same window causes to enter non-root
>> mode in emulated SMM (i.e. with IF=0) and with a request to
>> inject an IRQ (i.e. with a valid VM-entry interrupt info field).
>> This is invalid guest state (SDM 26.3.1.4 "Check on Guest RIP
>> and RFLAGS") and the processor fails vmentry.
>>
>> The fix is to defer the injection from KVM_REQ_SMI to KVM_REQ_EVENT,
>> like we already do for e.g. NMIs.  This patch doesn't change the
>> name of the process_smi function so that it can be applied to
>> stable releases.  The next patch will modify the names so that
>> process_nmi and process_smi process respectively KVM_REQ_NMI and
>> KVM_REQ_SMI.
>>
>> This is especially common with Windows, probably due to the
>> self-IPI trick that it uses to deliver deferred procedure
>> calls (DPCs).
>>
>> Reported-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@...hat.com>
>> Fixes: 64d6067057d9658acb8675afcfba549abdb7fc16
>> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
>> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> @@ -6098,7 +6094,10 @@ static int inject_pending_event(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool req_int_win)
>>  	}
>>  
>>  	/* try to inject new event if pending */
>> -	if (vcpu->arch.nmi_pending && kvm_x86_ops->nmi_allowed(vcpu)) {
>> +	if (vcpu->arch.smi_pending && !is_smm(vcpu)) {
> 
> Clearing smi_pending in kvm_vcpu_reset() would be safer now that SMI can
> be injected without a request or RSM.

Indeed.

>> +		--vcpu->arch.smi_pending;
> 
> (I'd use 'vcpu->arch.smi_pending = false', to make it clearer that we
>  don't want multiple pending SMIs, unlike NMIs.  smi_pending is bool,
>  so the generated code should be identical.)

Right.  Making the code superficially similar for SMI and NMI was nice;
however, as discussed a while ago we could probably make nmi_pending a
bool too.

>> +		process_smi(vcpu);
>> +	} else if (vcpu->arch.nmi_pending && kvm_x86_ops->nmi_allowed(vcpu)) {
>>  		--vcpu->arch.nmi_pending;
> 
> 
>> @@ -6621,8 +6631,10 @@ static int vcpu_enter_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>  
>>  	kvm_load_guest_xcr0(vcpu);
>>  
>> -	if (req_immediate_exit)
>> +	if (req_immediate_exit) {
>> +		kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT, vcpu);
>>  		smp_send_reschedule(vcpu->cpu);
> 
> (Is this a fix for non-smi cases too?)

No, I don't think so, the existing req_immediate_exit case is only after
a VMLAUNCH/VMRESUME vmexit, in which case we already have a

        if (vmx->nested.nested_run_pending)
                kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT, vcpu);

in vmx_vcpu_run.

Thanks for the fast review, I'll try to post v2 as soon as possible.

Paolo