linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] KVM: LAPIC: Don't silently accept bad vectors

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: <20171004144444.GI21107@flask>
Date:   Wed, 4 Oct 2017 16:44:44 +0200
From:   Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
To:     Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] KVM: LAPIC: Don't silently accept bad vectors

2017-10-04 22:16+0800, Wanpeng Li:
> 2017-10-04 20:01 GMT+08:00 Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>:
> > 2017-10-04 15:56+0800, Wanpeng Li:
> >> 2017-10-04 1:53 GMT+08:00 Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>:
> >> > 2017-09-28 18:04-0700, Wanpeng Li:
> >> >> @@ -946,6 +965,11 @@ static int __apic_accept_irq(struct kvm_lapic *apic, int delivery_mode,
> >> >>       int result = 0;
> >> >>       struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = apic->vcpu;
> >> >>
> >> >> +     if (unlikely(vector < 16) && delivery_mode == APIC_DM_FIXED) {
> >> >> +             apic_error(apic, APIC_ESR_RECVILL);
> >> >
> >> > The error is also triggered if lowest priority is supported and tries to
> >> > deliver an invalid vector.
> >>
> >> Could you point out this in SDM? :)
> >
> > In section 10.5.3 Error Handling:
> >
> >   If the local APIC does not support the sending of lowest-priority IPIs
> >   and software writes the ICR to send a lowest-priority IPI with an
> >   illegal vector, the local APIC sets only the “redirectible IPI” error
> >   bit.
> >
> > Hence, if local APIC does support lowest-priority, then it throws the
> > same error as fixed.  (KVM does support lowest-priority.)
> 
> Yeah, I read the section before but I misunderstand it. It seems that
> the section means it just occurs when the local APIC does not support
> the sending of lowest-priority IPIs?

I think so.