linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v17 4/6] KVM: arm64: Expose KVM_ARM_CAP

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: <877dimcmji.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 22 Jun 2021 09:48:33 +0100
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To:     Fuad Tabba <tabba@...gle.com>
Cc:     Steven Price <steven.price@....com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
        qemu-devel@...gnu.org, Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
        Juan Quintela <quintela@...hat.com>,
        Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@...aro.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 4/6] KVM: arm64: Expose KVM_ARM_CAP_MTE

On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 09:07:51 +0100,
Fuad Tabba <tabba@...gle.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 12:18 PM Steven Price <steven.price@....com> wrote:
> >
> > It's now safe for the VMM to enable MTE in a guest, so expose the
> > capability to user space.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
> > Signed-off-by: Steven Price <steven.price@....com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c      | 9 +++++++++
> >  arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c    | 4 ++++
> >  arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c | 3 +++
> >  3 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > index e720148232a0..28ce26a68f09 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > @@ -93,6 +93,12 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_enable_cap(struct kvm *kvm,
> >                 r = 0;
> >                 kvm->arch.return_nisv_io_abort_to_user = true;
> >                 break;
> > +       case KVM_CAP_ARM_MTE:
> > +               if (!system_supports_mte() || kvm->created_vcpus)
> > +                       return -EINVAL;
> > +               r = 0;
> > +               kvm->arch.mte_enabled = true;
> > +               break;
> >         default:
> >                 r = -EINVAL;
> >                 break;
> > @@ -237,6 +243,9 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_check_extension(struct kvm *kvm, long ext)
> >                  */
> >                 r = 1;
> >                 break;
> > +       case KVM_CAP_ARM_MTE:
> > +               r = system_supports_mte();
> > +               break;
> >         case KVM_CAP_STEAL_TIME:
> >                 r = kvm_arm_pvtime_supported();
> >                 break;
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c
> > index d37ebee085cf..9e6922b9503a 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c
> > @@ -244,6 +244,10 @@ int kvm_reset_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >         switch (vcpu->arch.target) {
> >         default:
> >                 if (test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, vcpu->arch.features)) {
> > +                       if (vcpu->kvm->arch.mte_enabled) {
> > +                               ret = -EINVAL;
> > +                               goto out;
> > +                       }
> >                         pstate = VCPU_RESET_PSTATE_SVC;
> >                 } else {
> >                         pstate = VCPU_RESET_PSTATE_EL1;
> 
> nit: I was wondering whether this check would be better suited in
> kvm_vcpu_set_target, rather than here (kvm_reset_vcpu). kvm_reset_vcpu
> is called by kvm_vcpu_set_target, but kvm_vcpu_set_target is where
> checking for supported features happens. It might be better to group
> all such checks together. I don't think that there is any risk of this
> feature being toggled by the other call path to kvm_reset_vcpu (via
> check_vcpu_requests).

We already group the 32bit related compatibility checks in
vcpu_allowed_register_width(), and this is where I think this should
move to. I've provisionally added the change below.

	M.

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c
index 9e6922b9503a..cba7872d69a8 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c
@@ -176,6 +176,10 @@ static bool vcpu_allowed_register_width(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
 	if (!cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL1) && is32bit)
 		return false;
 
+	/* MTE is incompatible with AArch32 */
+	if (kvm_has_mte(vcpu->kvm) && is32bit)
+		return false;
+
 	/* Check that the vcpus are either all 32bit or all 64bit */
 	kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, tmp, vcpu->kvm) {
 		if (vcpu_has_feature(tmp, KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT) != is32bit)
@@ -244,10 +248,6 @@ int kvm_reset_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
 	switch (vcpu->arch.target) {
 	default:
 		if (test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, vcpu->arch.features)) {
-			if (vcpu->kvm->arch.mte_enabled) {
-				ret = -EINVAL;
-				goto out;
-			}
 			pstate = VCPU_RESET_PSTATE_SVC;
 		} else {
 			pstate = VCPU_RESET_PSTATE_EL1;


-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.