linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: Handle GICR

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:   Tue, 24 Dec 2019 10:52:26 +0800
From:   Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
CC:     <andre.przywara@....com>, <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <wanghaibin.wang@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: Handle GICR_PENDBASER.PTZ filed as
 RAZ

Hi Marc, Eric,

On 2019/12/23 22:07, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Hi Zenghui,
> 
> On 2019-12-23 13:43, Zenghui Yu wrote:
>> On 2019/12/20 19:18, Zenghui Yu wrote:
>>> Although guest will hardly read and use the PTZ (Pending Table Zero)
>>> bit in GICR_PENDBASER, let us emulate the architecture strictly.
>>> As per IHI 0069E 9.11.30, PTZ field is WO, and reads as 0.
>>> Signed-off-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>
>>> ---
>>> Noticed when checking all fields of GICR_PENDBASER register.
>>> But _not_ sure whether it's worth a fix, as Linux never sets
>>> the PTZ bit before enabling LPI (set GICR_CTLR_ENABLE_LPIS).
>>> And I wonder under which scenarios can this bit be written as 1.
>>> It seems difficult for software to determine whether the pending
>>> table contains all zeros when writing this bit.
>>> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c | 5 ++++-
>>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c 
>>> b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c
>>> index 7dfd15dbb308..ebc218840fc2 100644
>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c
>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c
>>> @@ -414,8 +414,11 @@ static unsigned long 
>>> vgic_mmio_read_pendbase(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>>                            gpa_t addr, unsigned int len)
>>>   {
>>>       struct vgic_cpu *vgic_cpu = &vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu;
>>> +    u64 value = vgic_cpu->pendbaser;
>>>   -    return extract_bytes(vgic_cpu->pendbaser, addr & 7, len);
>>> +    value &= ~GICR_PENDBASER_PTZ;
>>> +
>>> +    return extract_bytes(value, addr & 7, len);
>>>   }
>>>   static void vgic_mmio_write_pendbase(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>>
>>
>> I noticed there is no userspace access callbacks for GICR_PENDBASER,
>> so this patch will make the PTZ field also 'Read As Zero' by userspace.
>> Should we consider adding a uaccess_read callback for GICR_PENDBASER
>> which just returns the unchanged vgic_cpu->pendbaser to userspace?
>> (Though this is really not a big deal. We now always emulate the PTZ
>> field to guest as RAZ. And 'vgic_cpu->pendbaser & GICR_PENDBASER_PTZ'
>> only indicates whether KVM will optimize the LPI enabling process,
>> where Read As Zero indicates never optimize..)
> 
> I don't think adding a userspace accessor would help much. All this
> bit tells userspace is that the guest has programmed a zero filled
> table. On restore, we'd avoid a rescan of the table if there was
> no LPI mapped.

Yes, I agree.

> And thinking of it, this fixes a bug for non-Linux guests: If you write
> PTZ=1, we never clear it. Which means that if userspace saves and restores
> PENDBASER with PTZ set, we'll never restore the pending bits, which is
> pretty bad (see vgic_enable_lpis()).

But I'm afraid I can't follow this point. After reading the code (with
Qemu) a bit further, the Redistributors are restored before the ITS. So
there should be _no_ LPI has been mapped when we're restoring GICR_CTLR
and enabling LPI, which says we will not scan the whole pending table
and restore pending by vgic_enable_lpis()/its_sync_lpi_pending_table(),
regardless of what the PTZ is.

Instead, vgic_its_restore_ite()/vgic_v3_lpi_sync_pending_status() is
where we actually read the guest RAM and restore the LPI pending state.
Which means we will still do the right thing even for non-Linux guests.
Not sure if I've got things correctly here.

In the end, let's keep the patch as it is.

> 
> This patch on its own fixes more than one bug!
> 

If so, just by luck ;-)


Thanks,
Zenghui