| 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: <CEFF2A14-611A-417C-BC0A-8814862F26C6@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 16:41:14 +0300
From: Liran Alon <liran.alon@...cle.com>
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/kvm/nVMCS: fix VMCLEAR when Enlightened VMCS is in
use
> On 24 Jun 2019, at 16:30, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> When Enlightened VMCS is in use, it is valid to do VMCLEAR and,
> according to TLFS, this should "transition an enlightened VMCS from the
> active to the non-active state". It is, however, wrong to assume that
> it is only valid to do VMCLEAR for the eVMCS which is currently active
> on the vCPU performing VMCLEAR.
>
> Currently, the logic in handle_vmclear() is broken: in case, there is no
> active eVMCS on the vCPU doing VMCLEAR we treat the argument as a 'normal'
> VMCS and kvm_vcpu_write_guest() to the 'launch_state' field irreversibly
> corrupts the memory area.
>
> So, in case the VMCLEAR argument is not the current active eVMCS on the
> vCPU, how can we know if the area it is pointing to is a normal or an
> enlightened VMCS?
> Thanks to the bug in Hyper-V (see commit 72aeb60c52bf7 ("KVM: nVMX: Verify
> eVMCS revision id match supported eVMCS version on eVMCS VMPTRLD")) we can
> not, the revision can't be used to distinguish between them. So let's
> assume it is always enlightened in case enlightened vmentry is enabled in
> the assist page. Also, check if vmx->nested.enlightened_vmcs_enabled to
> minimize the impact for 'unenlightened' workloads.
>
> Fixes: b8bbab928fb1 ("KVM: nVMX: implement enlightened VMPTRLD and VMCLEAR")
> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/evmcs.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/evmcs.h | 1 +
> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c | 19 ++++++++-----------
> 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/evmcs.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/evmcs.c
> index 1a6b3e1581aa..eae636ec0cc8 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/evmcs.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/evmcs.c
> @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
> #include <linux/errno.h>
> #include <linux/smp.h>
>
> +#include "../hyperv.h"
> #include "evmcs.h"
> #include "vmcs.h"
> #include "vmx.h"
> @@ -309,6 +310,23 @@ void evmcs_sanitize_exec_ctrls(struct vmcs_config *vmcs_conf)
> }
> #endif
>
> +bool nested_enlightened_vmentry(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 *evmptr)
I prefer to rename evmptr to evmcs_ptr. I think it’s more readable and sufficiently short.
In addition, I think you should return either -1ull or assist_page.current_nested_vmcs.
i.e. Don’t return evmcs_ptr by pointer but instead as a return-value and get rid of the bool.
> +{
> + struct hv_vp_assist_page assist_page;
> +
> + *evmptr = -1ull;
> +
> + if (unlikely(!kvm_hv_get_assist_page(vcpu, &assist_page)))
> + return false;
> +
> + if (unlikely(!assist_page.enlighten_vmentry))
> + return false;
> +
> + *evmptr = assist_page.current_nested_vmcs;
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> uint16_t nested_get_evmcs_version(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> struct vcpu_vmx *vmx = to_vmx(vcpu);
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/evmcs.h b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/evmcs.h
> index e0fcef85b332..c449e79a9c4a 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/evmcs.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/evmcs.h
> @@ -195,6 +195,7 @@ static inline void evmcs_sanitize_exec_ctrls(struct vmcs_config *vmcs_conf) {}
> static inline void evmcs_touch_msr_bitmap(void) {}
> #endif /* IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HYPERV) */
>
> +bool nested_enlightened_vmentry(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 *evmptr);
> uint16_t nested_get_evmcs_version(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> int nested_enable_evmcs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> uint16_t *vmcs_version);
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
> index 9214b3aea1f9..ee8dda7d8a03 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
> @@ -1765,26 +1765,21 @@ static int nested_vmx_handle_enlightened_vmptrld(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> bool from_launch)
> {
> struct vcpu_vmx *vmx = to_vmx(vcpu);
> - struct hv_vp_assist_page assist_page;
> + u64 evmptr;
I prefer to rename evmptr to evmcs_ptr. I think it’s more readable and sufficiently short.
>
> if (likely(!vmx->nested.enlightened_vmcs_enabled))
> return 1;
>
> - if (unlikely(!kvm_hv_get_assist_page(vcpu, &assist_page)))
> + if (!nested_enlightened_vmentry(vcpu, &evmptr))
> return 1;
>
> - if (unlikely(!assist_page.enlighten_vmentry))
> - return 1;
> -
> - if (unlikely(assist_page.current_nested_vmcs !=
> - vmx->nested.hv_evmcs_vmptr)) {
> -
> + if (unlikely(evmptr != vmx->nested.hv_evmcs_vmptr)) {
> if (!vmx->nested.hv_evmcs)
> vmx->nested.current_vmptr = -1ull;
>
> nested_release_evmcs(vcpu);
>
> - if (kvm_vcpu_map(vcpu, gpa_to_gfn(assist_page.current_nested_vmcs),
> + if (kvm_vcpu_map(vcpu, gpa_to_gfn(evmptr),
> &vmx->nested.hv_evmcs_map))
> return 0;
>
> @@ -1826,7 +1821,7 @@ static int nested_vmx_handle_enlightened_vmptrld(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> */
> vmx->nested.hv_evmcs->hv_clean_fields &=
> ~HV_VMX_ENLIGHTENED_CLEAN_FIELD_ALL;
> - vmx->nested.hv_evmcs_vmptr = assist_page.current_nested_vmcs;
> + vmx->nested.hv_evmcs_vmptr = evmptr;
>
> /*
> * Unlike normal vmcs12, enlightened vmcs12 is not fully
> @@ -4331,6 +4326,7 @@ static int handle_vmclear(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> struct vcpu_vmx *vmx = to_vmx(vcpu);
> u32 zero = 0;
> gpa_t vmptr;
> + u64 evmptr;
I prefer to rename evmptr to evmcs_ptr. I think it’s more readable and sufficiently short.
>
> if (!nested_vmx_check_permission(vcpu))
> return 1;
> @@ -4346,7 +4342,8 @@ static int handle_vmclear(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> return nested_vmx_failValid(vcpu,
> VMXERR_VMCLEAR_VMXON_POINTER);
>
> - if (vmx->nested.hv_evmcs_map.hva) {
> + if (unlikely(vmx->nested.enlightened_vmcs_enabled) &&
> + nested_enlightened_vmentry(vcpu, &evmptr)) {
> if (vmptr == vmx->nested.hv_evmcs_vmptr)
Shouldn’t you also remove the (vmptr == vmx->nested.hv_evmcs_vmptr) condition?
To my understanding, vmx->nested.hv_evmcs_vmptr represents the address of the loaded eVMCS on current vCPU.
But according to commit message, it is valid for vCPU to perform VMCLEAR on eVMCS that differ from loaded eVMCS on vCPU.
E.g. The current vCPU may even have vmx->nested.hv_evmcs_vmptr set to -1ull.
-Liran
> nested_release_evmcs(vcpu);
> } else {
> --
> 2.20.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists