linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] KVM: Support guest MAXPHYADDR

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: <CALMp9eRPxc6OuFZhrbyDJWhkrhtOeBWD5qSwkgg5RuVx8F_RqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Feb 2020 09:58:26 -0800
From:   Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
To:     Mohammed Gamal <mgamal@...hat.com>
Cc:     kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] KVM: Support guest MAXPHYADDR < host MAXPHYADDR

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 9:23 AM Mohammed Gamal <mgamal@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> When EPT/NPT is enabled, KVM does not really look at guest physical
> address size. Address bits above maximum physical memory size are reserved.
> Because KVM does not look at these guest physical addresses, it currently
> effectively supports guest physical address sizes equal to the host.
>
> This can be problem when having a mixed setup of machines with 5-level page
> tables and machines with 4-level page tables, as live migration can change
> MAXPHYADDR while the guest runs, which can theoretically introduce bugs.
>
> In this patch series we add checks on guest physical addresses in EPT
> violation/misconfig and NPF vmexits and if needed inject the proper
> page faults in the guest.
>
> A more subtle issue is when the host MAXPHYADDR is larger than that of the
> guest. Page faults caused by reserved bits on the guest won't cause an EPT
> violation/NPF and hence we also check guest MAXPHYADDR and add PFERR_RSVD_MASK
> error code to the page fault if needed.

What about the #GP that should be delivered if any reserved bits are
set in any of the 4 PDPTRs when the guest loads CR3 in PAE mode?