linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] KVM: MMU: check guest CR3 reserved bits based on its physical address width.

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <cd892269-10cc-7289-974d-c786df6f59c4@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Sep 2017 16:15:23 +0800
From:   Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
Cc:     kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, xiaoguangrong@...cent.com,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] KVM: MMU: check guest CR3 reserved bits based on
 its physical address width.



On 9/16/2017 7:19 AM, Jim Mattson wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 5:27 AM, Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>> Currently, KVM uses CR3_L_MODE_RESERVED_BITS to check the
>> reserved bits in CR3. Yet the length of reserved bits in
>> guest CR3 should be based on the physical address width
>> exposed to the VM. This patch changes CR3 check logic to
>> calculate the reserved bits at runtime.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>
>> ---
>>   arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h |  1 -
>>   arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c          | 14 ++++++++++++--
>>   arch/x86/kvm/mmu.h              |  3 +++
>>   arch/x86/kvm/x86.c              |  8 ++++----
>>   4 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> index 6db0ed9..e716228 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> @@ -79,7 +79,6 @@
>>                            | X86_CR0_ET | X86_CR0_NE | X86_CR0_WP | X86_CR0_AM \
>>                            | X86_CR0_NW | X86_CR0_CD | X86_CR0_PG))
>>
>> -#define CR3_L_MODE_RESERVED_BITS 0xFFFFFF0000000000ULL
>>   #define CR3_PCID_INVD           BIT_64(63)
>>   #define CR4_RESERVED_BITS                                               \
>>          (~(unsigned long)(X86_CR4_VME | X86_CR4_PVI | X86_CR4_TSD | X86_CR4_DE\
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
>> index 319d91f..a89b595 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
>> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
>>
>>   #include "x86.h"
>>   #include "tss.h"
>> +#include "mmu.h"
>>
>>   /*
>>    * Operand types
>> @@ -4097,8 +4098,17 @@ static int check_cr_write(struct x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt)
>>                  u64 rsvd = 0;
>>
>>                  ctxt->ops->get_msr(ctxt, MSR_EFER, &efer);
>> -               if (efer & EFER_LMA)
>> -                       rsvd = CR3_L_MODE_RESERVED_BITS & ~CR3_PCID_INVD;
>> +               if (efer & EFER_LMA) {
>> +                       u64 maxphyaddr;
>> +                       u32 eax = 0x80000008;
>> +
>> +                       if (ctxt->ops->get_cpuid(ctxt, &eax, NULL, NULL,
>> +                                                NULL, false))
> Passing NULL for the address of ecx looks problematic to me.
>
> We have:
>
> static bool emulator_get_cpuid(struct x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt,
>                          u32 *eax, u32 *ebx, u32 *ecx, u32 *edx, bool
> check_limit)
> {
>          return kvm_cpuid(emul_to_vcpu(ctxt), eax, ebx, ecx, edx, check_limit);
> }
>
> And:
>
> bool kvm_cpuid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 *eax, u32 *ebx,
>         u32 *ecx, u32 *edx, bool check_limit)
> {
> u32 function = *eax, index = *ecx;
> struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *best;
> bool entry_found = true;
> ...
>
> Doesn't this immediately try to dereference a NULL pointer?  How much
> testing have you done of this code?

Thanks Jim.
I have tested this code in a simulator to successfully boot a VM in 
shadow mode.
Seems this code is not covered(but I am now still perplexed why this is 
not covered).
Any possibility that the check_cr_write() is not triggered when 
emulating the cr
operations?

Anyway, this should be a bug and thanks for pointing this out, and I'll 
send out the
fix later.

BR
Yu