linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v2] KVM: x86: Initializing all kvm_lapic_irq fields in ioapic_write

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:   Fri, 13 Mar 2020 12:01:22 -0400
From:   Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@...hat.com>
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        mtosatti@...hat.com, sean.j.christopherson@...el.com,
        wanpengli@...cent.com, jmattson@...gle.com, joro@...tes.org,
        pbonzini@...hat.com, peterx@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [Patch v2] KVM: x86: Initializing all kvm_lapic_irq fields in
 ioapic_write_indirect


On 3/13/20 9:38 AM, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> On 3/13/20 9:25 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@...hat.com> writes:
>>
>>> Previously all fields of structure kvm_lapic_irq were not initialized
>>> before it was passed to kvm_bitmap_or_dest_vcpus(). Which will cause
>>> an issue when any of those fields are used for processing a request.
>>> For example not initializing the msi_redir_hint field before passing
>>> to the kvm_bitmap_or_dest_vcpus(), may lead to a misbehavior of
>>> kvm_apic_map_get_dest_lapic(). This will specifically happen when the
>>> kvm_lowest_prio_delivery() returns TRUE due to a non-zero garbage
>>> value of msi_redir_hint, which should not happen as the request belongs
>>> to APIC fixed delivery mode and we do not want to deliver the
>>> interrupt only to the lowest priority candidate.
>>>
>>> This patch initializes all the fields of kvm_lapic_irq based on the
>>> values of ioapic redirect_entry object before passing it on to
>>> kvm_bitmap_or_dest_vcpus().
>>>
>>> Fixes: 7ee30bc132c6("KVM: x86: deliver KVM IOAPIC scan request to target vCPUs")
>>> Signed-off-by: Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@...hat.com>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/x86/kvm/ioapic.c | 7 +++++--
>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/ioapic.c b/arch/x86/kvm/ioapic.c
>>> index 7668fed..3a8467d 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/ioapic.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/ioapic.c
>>> @@ -378,12 +378,15 @@ static void ioapic_write_indirect(struct kvm_ioapic *ioapic, u32 val)
>>>  		if (e->fields.delivery_mode == APIC_DM_FIXED) {
>>>  			struct kvm_lapic_irq irq;
>>>  
>>> -			irq.shorthand = APIC_DEST_NOSHORT;
>>>  			irq.vector = e->fields.vector;
>>>  			irq.delivery_mode = e->fields.delivery_mode << 8;
>>> -			irq.dest_id = e->fields.dest_id;
>>>  			irq.dest_mode =
>>>  			    kvm_lapic_irq_dest_mode(!!e->fields.dest_mode);
>>> +			irq.level = 1;
>> 'level' is bool in struct kvm_lapic_irq but other than that, is there a
>> reason we set it to 'true' here? I understand that any particular
>> setting is likely better than random
> Yes, that is the only reason which I had in my mind while doing this change.
> I was not particularly sure about the value, so I copied what ioapic_serivce()
> is doing.

Do you think I should skip setting this here?

>>  and it should actually not be used
>> without setting it first but still?
>>
>>> +			irq.trig_mode = e->fields.trig_mode;
>>> +			irq.shorthand = APIC_DEST_NOSHORT;
>>> +			irq.dest_id = e->fields.dest_id;
>>> +			irq.msi_redir_hint = false;
>>>  			bitmap_zero(&vcpu_bitmap, 16);
>>>  			kvm_bitmap_or_dest_vcpus(ioapic->kvm, &irq,
>>>  						 &vcpu_bitmap);
-- 
Nitesh



Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)