linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: s390: Test for bad access register and size at the start of S390_MEM

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <36ce3dc8-486b-05ce-b906-6ea6b5584bf7@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Aug 2019 15:57:27 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: s390: Test for bad access register and size at
 the start of S390_MEM_OP

On 29.08.19 14:25, Thomas Huth wrote:
> If the KVM_S390_MEM_OP ioctl is called with an access register >= 16,
> then there is certainly a bug in the calling userspace application.
> We check for wrong access registers, but only if the vCPU was already
> in the access register mode before (i.e. the SIE block has recorded
> it). The check is also buried somewhere deep in the calling chain (in
> the function ar_translation()), so this is somewhat hard to find.
> 
> It's better to always report an error to the userspace in case this
> field is set wrong, and it's safer in the KVM code if we block wrong
> values here early instead of relying on a check somewhere deep down
> the calling chain, so let's add another check to kvm_s390_guest_mem_op()
> directly.
> 
> We also should check that the "size" is non-zero here (thanks to Janosch
> Frank for the hint!). If we do not check the size, we could call vmalloc()
> with this 0 value, and this will cause a kernel warning.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>
> ---
>  v2: Check mop->size to be non-zero
> 
>  arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> index f329dcb3f44c..49d7722229ae 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> @@ -4255,7 +4255,7 @@ static long kvm_s390_guest_mem_op(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>  	const u64 supported_flags = KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_INJECT_EXCEPTION
>  				    | KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CHECK_ONLY;
>  
> -	if (mop->flags & ~supported_flags)
> +	if (mop->flags & ~supported_flags || mop->ar >= NUM_ACRS || !mop->size)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
>  	if (mop->size > MEM_OP_MAX_SIZE)
> 

Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>

-- 

Thanks,

David / dhildenb