linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/16] KVM: arm64: Add MMIO checking infrastructure

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210730122658.GG23589@willie-the-truck>
Date:   Fri, 30 Jul 2021 13:26:59 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        qperret@...gle.com, dbrazdil@...gle.com,
        Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...eaurora.org>,
        Shanker R Donthineni <sdonthineni@...dia.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@....com>,
        kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/16] KVM: arm64: Add MMIO checking infrastructure

On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 10:57:30AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 19:11:08 +0100,
> Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 05:31:47PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > +bool kvm_install_ioguard_page(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gpa_t ipa)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct kvm_mmu_memory_cache *memcache;
> > > +	struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot;
> > > +	int ret, idx;
> > > +
> > > +	if (!test_bit(KVM_ARCH_FLAG_MMIO_GUARD, &vcpu->kvm->arch.flags))
> > > +		return false;
> > > +
> > > +	/* Must be page-aligned */
> > > +	if (ipa & ~PAGE_MASK)
> > > +		return false;
> > > +
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * The page cannot be in a memslot. At some point, this will
> > > +	 * have to deal with device mappings though.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	idx = srcu_read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->srcu);
> > > +	memslot = gfn_to_memslot(vcpu->kvm, ipa >> PAGE_SHIFT);
> > > +	srcu_read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->srcu, idx);
> > 
> > What does this memslot check achieve? A new memslot could be added after
> > you've checked, no?
> 
> If you start allowing S2 annotations to coexist with potential memory
> mappings, you're in for trouble. The faulting logic will happily
> overwrite the annotation, and that's probably not what you want.

I don't disagree, but the check above appears to be racy.

> As for new (or moving) memslots, I guess they should be checked
> against existing annotations.

Something like that, but the devil is in the details as it will need to
synchronize with this check somehow.

Will