[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200530194232.GU23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 20:42:32 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] x86: kvm_hv_set_msr(): use __put_user() instead of
32bit __clear_user()
On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 12:20:54PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 12:14 PM Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > And none of that code verifies that the end result is a user address.
> >
> > kvm_is_error_hva() is
> > return addr >= PAGE_OFFSET;
>
> Ahh, that's what I missed. It won't work on other architectures, but
> within x86 it's fine.
FWIW, we use virt/kvm on x86, powerpc, mips, s390 and arm64.
For x86 and powerpc the check is, AFAICS, OK (ppc kernel might start
higher than PAGE_OFFSET, but not lower than it). For arm64... not
sure - I'm not familiar with the virtual address space layout we use
there. mips does *NOT* get that protection at all - there kvm_is_error_hva()
is IS_ERR_VALUE() (thus the "at least on non-mips" upthread). And
for s390 it's also IS_ERR_VALUE(), but that's an separate can of worms -
there access_ok() is constant true; if we ever hit any of that code in
virt/kvm while under KERNEL_DS, we are well and truly fucked there.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists