linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/54] KVM: x86/mmu: Replace EPT shadow page shenanigans with simpler check

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: <YNNnSgVUYUewP2qK@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 Jun 2021 16:54:34 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     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,
        Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/54] KVM: x86/mmu: Replace EPT shadow page shenanigans
 with simpler check

On Wed, Jun 23, 2021, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 23/06/21 18:17, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > What the commit message doesn't say is, did we miss this
> > > opportunity all along, or has there been a change since commit
> > > 47c42e6b4192 ("KVM: x86: fix handling of role.cr4_pae and rename it
> > > to 'gpte_size'", 2019-03-28) that allows this?
> > 
> > The code was wrong from the initial "unsync" commit.  The 4-byte vs.
> > 8-byte check papered over the real bug, which was that the roles were
> > not checked for compabitility.  I suspect that the bug only
> > manisfested as an observable problem when the GPTE sizes mismatched,
> > thus the PAE check was added.
> 
> I meant that we really never needed is_ept_sp, and you could have used the
> simpler check already at the time you introduced gpte_is_8_bytes. But anyway
> I think we're in agreement.

Ah, yes, I was too clever :-/