linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 7/9] KVM: VMX: Add guest physical address check in EPT violation and misconfig

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: <CALMp9eR2ONSpz__H2+ZpM4qqT7FNowNwOfe4x9o-ocfhwRnEhw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Jan 2021 13:16:13 -0800
From:   Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Mohammed Gamal <mgamal@...hat.com>, kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Aaron Lewis <aaronlewis@...gle.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 7/9] KVM: VMX: Add guest physical address check in EPT
 violation and misconfig

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 11:35 AM Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 10:43 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 23/10/20 19:23, Jim Mattson wrote:
> > >> The information that we need is _not_ that provided by the advanced
> > >> VM-exit information (or by a page walk).  If a page is neither writable
> > >> nor executable, the advanced information doesn't say if the injected #PF
> > >> should be a W=1 or a F=1 fault.  We need the information in bits 0..2 of
> > >> the exit qualification for the final access, which however is not
> > >> available for the paging-structure access.
> > >>
> > > Are you planning to extend the emulator, then, to support all
> > > instructions? I'm not sure where you are going with this.
> >
> > I'm going to fix the bit 8=1 case, but for bit 8=0 there's not much that
> > you can do.  In all likelihood the guest is buggy anyway.
>
> Did this drop off your radar? Are you still planning to fix the bit8=1
> case to use advanced EPT exit qualification information? Or did I just
> miss it?

Paolo,
If you're not working on this, do you mind if I ask Aaron to take a look at it?