| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20171014142005.GC5886@lvm>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 07:20:05 -0700
From: Christoffer Dall <cdall@...aro.org>
To: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@...aro.org>
Cc: julien.thierry@....com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
christoffer.dall@...aro.org, marc.zyngier@....com,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] kvm: arm64: handle single-step of userspace mmio
instructions
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 10:27:36AM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
>
> Christoffer Dall <cdall@...aro.org> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 12:39:21PM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
> >> The system state of KVM when using userspace emulation is not complete
> >> until we return into KVM_RUN. To handle mmio related updates we wait
> >> until they have been committed and then schedule our KVM_EXIT_DEBUG.
> >>
> >> I've introduced a new function kvm_arm_maybe_return_debug() to wrap up
> >> the differences between arm/arm64 which is currently null for arm.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@...aro.org>
> >> ---
> >> arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 2 ++
> >> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 1 +
> >> arch/arm64/kvm/debug.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> >> arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c | 9 +++------
> >> virt/kvm/arm/arm.c | 2 +-
> >> virt/kvm/arm/mmio.c | 3 ++-
> >> 6 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >> index 4a879f6ff13b..aec943f6d123 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >> @@ -285,6 +285,8 @@ static inline void kvm_arm_init_debug(void) {}
> >> static inline void kvm_arm_setup_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
> >> static inline void kvm_arm_clear_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
> >> static inline void kvm_arm_reset_debug_ptr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
> >> +static inline int kvm_arm_maybe_return_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> >> + struct kvm_run *run) {}
> >>
> >> int kvm_arm_vcpu_arch_set_attr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> >> struct kvm_device_attr *attr);
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >> index e923b58606e2..fa67d21662f6 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >> @@ -369,6 +369,7 @@ void kvm_arm_init_debug(void);
> >> void kvm_arm_setup_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> >> void kvm_arm_clear_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> >> void kvm_arm_reset_debug_ptr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> >> +int kvm_arm_maybe_return_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run);
> >> int kvm_arm_vcpu_arch_set_attr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> >> struct kvm_device_attr *attr);
> >> int kvm_arm_vcpu_arch_get_attr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/debug.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/debug.c
> >> index dbadfaf850a7..a10a18c55c87 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/debug.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/debug.c
> >> @@ -221,3 +221,24 @@ void kvm_arm_clear_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >> }
> >> }
> >> }
> >> +
> >> +
> >> +/*
> >> + * When KVM has successfully emulated the instruction we might want to
> >> + * return we a KVM_EXIT_DEBUG. We can only do this once the emulation
> >> + * is complete though so for userspace emulations we have to wait
> >> + * until we have re-entered KVM.
> >> + *
> >> + * Return > 0 to return to guest, 0 (and set exit_reason) on proper
> >> + * exit to userspace.
> >> + */
> >> +
> >> +int kvm_arm_maybe_return_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
> >> +{
> >> + if (vcpu->guest_debug & KVM_GUESTDBG_SINGLESTEP) {
> >> + run->exit_reason = KVM_EXIT_DEBUG;
> >> + run->debug.arch.hsr = ESR_ELx_EC_SOFTSTP_LOW << ESR_ELx_EC_SHIFT;
> >> + return 0;
> >> + }
> >> + return 1;
> >> +}
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
> >> index c918d291cb58..7b04f59217bf 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
> >> @@ -202,13 +202,10 @@ static int handle_trap_exceptions(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
> >> handled = exit_handler(vcpu, run);
> >> }
> >>
> >> - if (handled && (vcpu->guest_debug & KVM_GUESTDBG_SINGLESTEP)) {
> >> - handled = 0;
> >> - run->exit_reason = KVM_EXIT_DEBUG;
> >> - run->debug.arch.hsr = ESR_ELx_EC_SOFTSTP_LOW << ESR_ELx_EC_SHIFT;
> >> - }
> >> + if (handled)
> >> + return kvm_arm_maybe_return_debug(vcpu, run);
> >
> > Again, this seems to override the return value of exit_handler, which
> > may be something negative.
> >
> > Just so I'm clear: There's no intended functionality change of this
> > particular hunk, it's just to share the logic in
> > kvm_arm_maybe_return_debug, right?
>
> Yes, modulo the annoying semantics in the two places of the vcpu run
> ioctl loop.
>
> >
> >>
> >> - return handled;
> >> + return 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >> /*
> >> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c b/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
> >> index b9f68e4add71..3d28fe2daa26 100644
> >> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
> >> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
> >> @@ -623,7 +623,7 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
> >>
> >> if (run->exit_reason == KVM_EXIT_MMIO) {
> >> ret = kvm_handle_mmio_return(vcpu, vcpu->run);
> >> - if (ret)
> >> + if (ret < 1)
> >> return ret;
> >> }
> >>
> >> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/mmio.c b/virt/kvm/arm/mmio.c
> >> index b6e715fd3c90..e43e3bd6222f 100644
> >> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/mmio.c
> >> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/mmio.c
> >> @@ -117,7 +117,8 @@ int kvm_handle_mmio_return(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
> >> vcpu_set_reg(vcpu, vcpu->arch.mmio_decode.rt, data);
> >> }
> >>
> >> - return 0;
> >> + /* If debugging in effect we may need to return now */
> >
> > Will this ever be about other types of debugging (watchpoint on a MMIO
> > access?) or should we limit the text and description to
> > single-stepping?
>
> Hmm I don't think so. A hbreak should hit (via normal exception path)
> before we attempt any emulation. I suspect watchpoints wouldn't hit for
> emulation though - that would be trickier to do nicely though as it
> would need to be checked for in both kernel and userspace emulation.
>
> >
Then I think we should be specific in function naming and comments and
refer to single-stepping as opposed to something more generic, because
single-stepping seems to be the case we care about.
Thanks,
-Christoffer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists