[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190917173258.GB2876@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 10:32:58 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
To: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] KVM: X86: Fix userspace set broken combinations
of CPUID and CR4
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 04:16:25PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> From: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>
>
> Reported by syzkaller:
>
> WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 6544 at /home/kernel/data/kvm/arch/x86/kvm//vmx/vmx.c:4689 handle_desc+0x37/0x40 [kvm_intel]
> CPU: 0 PID: 6544 Comm: a.out Tainted: G OE 5.3.0-rc4+ #4
> RIP: 0010:handle_desc+0x37/0x40 [kvm_intel]
> Call Trace:
> vmx_handle_exit+0xbe/0x6b0 [kvm_intel]
> vcpu_enter_guest+0x4dc/0x18d0 [kvm]
> kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run+0x407/0x660 [kvm]
> kvm_vcpu_ioctl+0x3ad/0x690 [kvm]
> do_vfs_ioctl+0xa2/0x690
> ksys_ioctl+0x6d/0x80
> __x64_sys_ioctl+0x1a/0x20
> do_syscall_64+0x74/0x720
> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
>
> When CR4.UMIP is set, guest should have UMIP cpuid flag. Current
> kvm set_sregs function doesn't have such check when userspace inputs
> sregs values. SECONDARY_EXEC_DESC is enabled on writes to CR4.UMIP
> in vmx_set_cr4 though guest doesn't have UMIP cpuid flag. The testcast
> triggers handle_desc warning when executing ltr instruction since
> guest architectural CR4 doesn't set UMIP. This patch fixes it by
> adding valid CR4 and CPUID combination checking in __set_sregs.
Checking CPUID will fix this specific scenario, but it doesn't resolve
the underlying issue of __set_sregs() ignoring the return of kvm_x86_ops'
set_cr4(), e.g. I think vmx_set_cr4() can still fail if userspace sets a
custom MSR_IA32_VMX_CR4_FIXED0 when nested VMX is on.
> syzkaller source: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.c?x=138efb99600000
>
> Reported-by: syzbot+0f1819555fbdce992df9@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> index f7cfd8e..cafb4d4 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -884,34 +884,42 @@ int kvm_set_xcr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 index, u64 xcr)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_set_xcr);
>
> -int kvm_set_cr4(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long cr4)
> +static int kvm_valid_cr4(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long cr4)
> {
> - unsigned long old_cr4 = kvm_read_cr4(vcpu);
> - unsigned long pdptr_bits = X86_CR4_PGE | X86_CR4_PSE | X86_CR4_PAE |
> - X86_CR4_SMEP | X86_CR4_SMAP | X86_CR4_PKE;
> -
> - if (cr4 & CR4_RESERVED_BITS)
> - return 1;
> -
> if (!guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_XSAVE) && (cr4 & X86_CR4_OSXSAVE))
> - return 1;
> + return -EINVAL;
>
> if (!guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_SMEP) && (cr4 & X86_CR4_SMEP))
> - return 1;
> + return -EINVAL;
>
> if (!guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_SMAP) && (cr4 & X86_CR4_SMAP))
> - return 1;
> + return -EINVAL;
>
> if (!guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_FSGSBASE) && (cr4 & X86_CR4_FSGSBASE))
> - return 1;
> + return -EINVAL;
>
> if (!guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_PKU) && (cr4 & X86_CR4_PKE))
> - return 1;
> + return -EINVAL;
>
> if (!guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_LA57) && (cr4 & X86_CR4_LA57))
> - return 1;
> + return -EINVAL;
>
> if (!guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_UMIP) && (cr4 & X86_CR4_UMIP))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +int kvm_set_cr4(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long cr4)
> +{
> + unsigned long old_cr4 = kvm_read_cr4(vcpu);
> + unsigned long pdptr_bits = X86_CR4_PGE | X86_CR4_PSE | X86_CR4_PAE |
> + X86_CR4_SMEP | X86_CR4_SMAP | X86_CR4_PKE;
> +
> + if (cr4 & CR4_RESERVED_BITS)
> + return 1;
Checking CPUID bits but allowing unconditionally reserved bits to be set
feels wrong.
Paolo, can you provide an "official" ruling on how KVM_SET_SREGS should
interact with reserved bits? It's not at all clear from the git history
if skipping the checks was intentional or an oversight.
The CR4_RESERVED_BITS check has been in kvm_set_cr4() since the beginning
of time (commit 6aa8b732ca01, "[PATCH] kvm: userspace interface").
The first CPUID check came later, in commit 2acf923e38fb ("KVM: VMX:
Enable XSAVE/XRSTOR for guest"), but its changelog is decidedly unhelpful.
> +
> + if (kvm_valid_cr4(vcpu, cr4))
> return 1;
>
> if (is_long_mode(vcpu)) {
> @@ -8675,7 +8683,8 @@ static int __set_sregs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_sregs *sregs)
> struct desc_ptr dt;
> int ret = -EINVAL;
>
> - if (kvm_valid_sregs(vcpu, sregs))
> + if (kvm_valid_sregs(vcpu, sregs) ||
No need for a line break. Even better, call kvm_valid_cr4() from
kvm_valid_sregs(), e.g. the X86_FEATURE_XSAVE check in kvm_valid_sregs()
is now redundant and can be dropped, and "return kvm_valid_cr4(...)" from
kvm_valid_sregs() can likely be optimized into a tail call.
> + kvm_valid_cr4(vcpu, sregs->cr4))
> goto out;
>
> apic_base_msr.data = sregs->apic_base;
> --
> 2.7.4
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists