linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/15] KVM: VMX: Configure list of user return MSRs at module init

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: <9cf65a1d7b96c69077779d7a11777004d0bce6c9.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 May 2021 15:34:19 +0300
From:   Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>,
        Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/15] KVM: VMX: Configure list of user return MSRs at
 module init

On Mon, 2021-05-10 at 15:13 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2021, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > On Tue, 2021-05-04 at 10:17 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > @@ -6929,18 +6942,10 @@ static int vmx_create_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > >  			goto free_vpid;
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > -	BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(vmx_uret_msrs_list) != MAX_NR_USER_RETURN_MSRS);
> > > +	for (i = 0; i < vmx_nr_uret_msrs; ++i) {
> > > +		vmx->guest_uret_msrs[i].data = 0;
> > >  
> > > -	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(vmx_uret_msrs_list); ++i) {
> > > -		u32 index = vmx_uret_msrs_list[i];
> > > -		int j = vmx->nr_uret_msrs;
> > > -
> > > -		if (kvm_probe_user_return_msr(index))
> > > -			continue;
> > > -
> > > -		vmx->guest_uret_msrs[j].slot = i;
> > I don't see anything initalizing the .slot after this patch.
> > Now this code is removed later which masks this bug, 
> > but for the bisect sake, I think that this patch 
> > should still be fixed.
> 
> Egad, indeed it's broken.  I'll retest the whole series to verify the other
> patches will bisect cleanly.
> 
> Nice catch!
> 
Thanks!

Best regards,
	Maxim Levitsky