linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 03/15] KVM: Add build-time error check on kvm

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]

Message-ID: <20191202224034.GH31681@xz-x1>
Date:   Mon, 2 Dec 2019 17:40:34 -0500
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 03/15] KVM: Add build-time error check on kvm_run size

On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 02:19:49PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 03:53:15PM -0500, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 11:30:27AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 04:34:53PM -0500, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > > It's already going to reach 2400 Bytes (which is over half of page
> > > > size on 4K page archs), so maybe it's good to have this build-time
> > > > check in case it overflows when adding new fields.
> > > 
> > > Please explain why exceeding PAGE_SIZE is a bad thing.  I realize it's
> > > almost absurdly obvious when looking at the code, but a) the patch itself
> > > does not provide that context and b) the changelog should hold up on its
> > > own,
> > 
> > Right, I'll enhance the commit message.
> > 
> > > e.g. in a mostly hypothetical case where the allocation of vcpu->run
> > > were changed to something else.
> > 
> > And that's why I added BUILD_BUG_ON right beneath that allocation. :)
> 
> My point is that if the allocation were changed to no longer be a
> straightforward alloc_page() then someone reading the combined code would
> have no idea why the BUILD_BUG_ON() exists.  It's a bit ridiculous for
> this case because the specific constraints of vcpu->run make it highly
> unlikely to use anything else, but that's beside the point.
> 
> > It's just a helper for developers when adding new kvm_run fields, not
> > a risk for anyone who wants to start allocating more pages for it.
> 
> But by adding a BUILD_BUG_ON without explaining *why*, you're placing an
> extra burden on someone that wants to increase the size of kvm->run, e.g.
> it's not at all obvious from the changelog whether this patch is adding
> the BUILD_BUG_ON purely because the code allocates memory for vcpu->run
> via alloc_page(), or if there is some fundamental aspect of vcpu->run that
> requires it to never span multiple pages.

How about I add a comment above it?

  /*
   * Currently kvm_run only uses one physical page.  Warn the develper
   * if kvm_run accidentaly grows more than that.
   */
  BUILD_BUG_ON(...);

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu