linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] KVM: s390: vsie: fix Do the CRYCB validation first

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:   Mon, 4 Feb 2019 15:48:26 +0100
From:   Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To:     pmorel@...ux.ibm.com, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cohuck@...hat.com,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        frankja@...ux.ibm.com, akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com, pasic@...ux.ibm.com,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] KVM: s390: vsie: fix Do the CRYCB validation first



On 01.02.2019 14:37, Pierre Morel wrote:
> On 01/02/2019 11:56, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 01.02.19 10:52, Pierre Morel wrote:
>>> The case when the SIE for guest3 is not setup for using
>>> encryption keys nor Adjunct processor but the guest2
>>> does use these features was not properly handled.
>>>
>>> This leads SIE entry for guest3 to crash with validity intercept
>>> because the guest2, not having the use of encryption keys nor
>>> Adjunct Processor did not initialize the CRYCB designation.
>>>
>>> In the case where none of ECA_APIE, ECB3_AES or ECB3_DEA
>>> are set in guest3 a format 0 CRYCB is allowed for guest3
>>> and the CRYCB designation in the SIE for guest3 is not checked
>>> on SIE entry.
>>>
>>> Let's allow the CRYCD designation to be ignored when the
>>> SIE for guest3 is not initialized for encryption key usage
>>> nor AP.
>>>
>>> Fixup: d6f6959 (KVM: s390: vsie: Do the CRYCB validation first)
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>
>>> Reported-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>>   arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c | 3 +++
>>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c b/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
>>> index a153257..a748f76 100644
>>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
>>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
>>> @@ -300,6 +300,9 @@ static int shadow_crycb(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vsie_page *vsie_page)
>>>       if (!apie_h && !key_msk)
>>>           return 0;
>>>   +    if (!(scb_o->eca & ECA_APIE) && !(scb_o->ecb3 & (ECB3_AES | ECB3_DEA)))
>>> +        return 0;
>>> +
>>>       if (!crycb_addr)
>>>           return set_validity_icpt(scb_s, 0x0039U);
>>>  
>>
>> The original patch said
>>
>> "We need to handle the validity checks for the crycb, no matter what the
>>   settings for the keywrappings are. So lets move the keywrapping checks
>>   after we have done the validy checks."
>>
>> Can you explain why keywrapping now is important? These patches seem to
>> contradict.
>>
> 
> No it does not, having the flags set or not is part of the validity check.
> but, I acted too fast.
> 
> The problem seems to be even clearer:
> key_msk is defined as
>    int key_msk = test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 76);
> 
> If it is defined, as it should for a mask, as
>     (scb_o->ecb3 & (ECB3_AES | ECB3_DEA))
> 
> all is clear..., key_msk is not use but for this test, so I do not understand why it is set as facility 76.
> 
> so I think I better do:
> 
> 
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c b/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
> index a153257..30843a8 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
> @@ -289,7 +289,7 @@ static int shadow_crycb(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vsie_page *vsie_page)
>         unsigned long *b1, *b2;
>         u8 ecb3_flags;
>         int apie_h;
> -       int key_msk = test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 76);
> +       int key_msk = scb_o->ecb3 & (ECB3_AES | ECB3_DEA);
>         int fmt_o = crycbd_o & CRYCB_FORMAT_MASK;
>         int fmt_h = vcpu->arch.sie_block->crycbd & CRYCB_FORMAT_MASK;
>         int ret = 0;
> 
> 
> So just define a mask a mask.
> I verify the functionality and test on Monday  and if in between it seems better to you so too I post the patch.

Can you spin a v2 with an improved patch description outlining the problem according
to this discussion?