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: <YgW/ZiURGlh5+nUr@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 11 Feb 2022 01:44:06 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        vkuznets@...hat.com, mlevitsk@...hat.com, dmatlack@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/12] KVM: MMU: do not consult levels when freeing roots

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 2/11/22 01:54, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > > @@ -3242,8 +3245,7 @@ void kvm_mmu_free_roots(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_mmu *mmu,
> > > > >   					   &invalid_list);
> > > > >   	if (free_active_root) {
> > > > > -		if (mmu->shadow_root_level >= PT64_ROOT_4LEVEL &&
> > > > > -		    (mmu->root_level >= PT64_ROOT_4LEVEL || mmu->direct_map)) {
> > > > > +		if (to_shadow_page(mmu->root.hpa)) {
> > > > >   			mmu_free_root_page(kvm, &mmu->root.hpa, &invalid_list);
> > > > >   		} else if (mmu->pae_root) {
> > > 
> > > Gah, this is technically wrong.  It shouldn't truly matter, but it's wrong.  root.hpa
> > > will not be backed by shadow page if the root is pml4_root or pml5_root, in which
> > > case freeing the PAE root is wrong.  They should obviously be invalid already, but
> > > it's a little confusing because KVM wanders down a path that may not be relevant
> > > to the current mode.
> > 
> > pml4_root and pml5_root are dummy, and the first "real" level of page tables
> > is stored in pae_root for that case too, so I think that should DTRT.
> 
> Ugh, completely forgot that detail.  You're correct.  Probably worth a comment?

Actually, can't this be

			if (to_shadow_page(mmu->root.hpa)) {
				...
			else if (!WARN_ON(!mmu->pae_root)) {
				...
			}

now that it's wrapped with VALID_PAGE(root.hpa)?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ