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  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]
Date:   Tue, 5 Oct 2021 19:27:31 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <>
To:     Sean Christopherson <>,
        Colin King <>
Cc:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <>,
        Wanpeng Li <>,
        Jim Mattson <>,
        Joerg Roedel <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>, Borislav Petkov <>,, "H . Peter Anvin" <>,
        David Stevens <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] KVM: x86: Fix allocation sizeof argument

On 05/10/21 17:41, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>   			if (*gfn_track == NULL) {
>>   				mutex_unlock(&kvm->slots_arch_lock);
> Hrm, this fails to free the gfn_track allocations for previous memslots.  The
> on-demand rmaps code has the exact same bug (it frees rmaps for previous lpages
> in the_current_  slot, but does not free previous slots).

That's not a huge deal because the syscall is failing.  So as long as 
it's not leaked forever, it's okay.  The problem is the 
WARN_ON(slot->arch.rmap[i]), or the missing check in 
kvm_page_track_enable_mmu_write_tracking, but that's easily fixed.  I'd 
even remove the call to memslot_rmaps_free.

> And having two separate flows (and flags) for rmaps vs. gfn_track is pointless,
> and means we have to maintain two near-identical copies of non-obvious code.

I was thinking the separate flow (not so much the flag) is needed 
because, if KVMGT is enabled, gfn_track is allocated unconditionally. 
rmaps are added on top of that if shadow paging is enabled; but 
kvm_page_track_create_memslot will have already created the counter, 
including the one for KVM_PAGE_TRACK_WRITE.

But looking at the code again, I guess you could call 
kvm_page_track_enable_mmu_write_tracking inside alloc_all_memslots_rmaps 
(with a little bit of renaming), and with that the flag would go away.

I'll take a look tomorrow, but I'd rather avoid reverting the patch.



> Paolo, is it too late to just drop the original deae4a10f166 ("KVM: x86: only
> allocate gfn_track when necessary")?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists