linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] KVM: x86: Fix stack-out-of-bounds memory access from ioapic_write

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: <87bl5lkgfm.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 25 Aug 2021 11:43:41 +0200
From:   Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
To:     Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
        Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] KVM: x86: Fix stack-out-of-bounds memory access
 from ioapic_write_indirect()

Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com> writes:

> On Wed, 2021-08-25 at 10:21 +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com> writes:
>> 
>> > On Tue, 2021-08-24 at 16:42 +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> ...
>> > Not a classical review but,
>> > I did some digital archaeology with this one, trying to understand what is going on:
>> > 
>> > 
>> > I think that 16 bit vcpu bitmap is due to the fact that IOAPIC spec states that
>> > it can address up to 16 cpus in physical destination mode.
>> >  
>> > In logical destination mode, assuming flat addressing and that logical id = 1 << physical id
>> > which KVM hardcodes, it is also only possible to address 8 CPUs.
>> >  
>> > However(!) in flat cluster mode, the logical apic id is split in two.
>> > We have 16 clusters and each have 4 CPUs, so it is possible to address 64 CPUs,
>> > and unlike the logical ID, the KVM does honour cluster ID, 
>> > thus one can stick say cluster ID 0 to any vCPU.
>> >  
>> >  
>> > Let's look at ioapic_write_indirect.
>> > It does:
>> >  
>> >     -> bitmap_zero(&vcpu_bitmap, 16);
>> >     -> kvm_bitmap_or_dest_vcpus(ioapic->kvm, &irq, &vcpu_bitmap);
>> >     -> kvm_make_scan_ioapic_request_mask(ioapic->kvm, &vcpu_bitmap); // use of the above bitmap
>> >  
>> >  
>> > When we call kvm_bitmap_or_dest_vcpus, we can already overflow the bitmap,
>> > since we pass all 8 bit of the destination even when it is physical.
>> >  
>> >  
>> > Lets examine the kvm_bitmap_or_dest_vcpus:
>> >  
>> >   -> It calls the kvm_apic_map_get_dest_lapic which 
>> >  
>> >        -> for physical destinations, it just sets the bitmap, which can overflow
>> >           if we pass it 8 bit destination (which basically includes reserved bits + 4 bit destination).
>> >  
>> >  
>> >        -> For logical apic ID, it seems to truncate the result to 16 bit, which isn't correct as I explained
>> >           above, but should not overflow the result.
>> >  
>> >   
>> >    -> If call to kvm_apic_map_get_dest_lapic fails, it goes over all vcpus and tries to match the destination
>> >        This can overflow as well.
>> >  
>> >  
>> > I also don't like that ioapic_write_indirect calls the kvm_bitmap_or_dest_vcpus twice,
>> > and second time with 'old_dest_id'
>> >  
>> > I am not 100%  sure why old_dest_id/old_dest_mode are needed as I don't see anything in the
>> > function changing them.
>> > I think only the guest can change them, so maybe the code deals with the guest changing them
>> > while the code is running from a different vcpu?
>> >  
>> > The commit that introduced this code is 7ee30bc132c683d06a6d9e360e39e483e3990708
>> > Nitesh Narayan Lal, maybe you remember something about it?
>> >  
>> 
>> Before posting this patch I've contacted Nitesh privately, he's
>> currently on vacation but will take a look when he gets back.
>> 
>> > Also I worry a lot about other callers of kvm_apic_map_get_dest_lapic
>> >  
>> > It is also called from kvm_irq_delivery_to_apic_fast, and from kvm_intr_is_single_vcpu_fast
>> > and both seem to also use 'unsigned long' for bitmap, and then only use 16 bits of it.
>> >  
>> > I haven't dug into them, but these don't seem to be IOAPIC related and I think
>> > can overwrite the stack as well.
>> 
>> I'm no expert in this code but when writing the patch I somehow
>> convinced myself that a single unsigned long is always enough. I think
>> that for cluster mode 'bitmap' needs 64-bits (and it is *not* a
>> vcpu_bitmap, we need to convert). I may be completely wrong of course
>> but in any case this is a different issue. In ioapic_write_indirect() we
>> have 'vcpu_bitmap' which should certainly be longer than 64 bits.
>
>
> This code which I mentioned in 'other callers' as far as I see is not IOAPIC related.
> For regular local APIC all bets are off, any vCPU and apic ID are possible 
> (xapic I think limits apic id to 255 but x2apic doesn't).
>
> I strongly suspect that this code can overflow as well.

I've probably missed something but I don't see how
kvm_apic_map_get_dest_lapic() can set bits above 64 in 'bitmap'. If it
can, then we have a problem indeed.

-- 
Vitaly