linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: X86: Fix the comments in prepare_vmcs02

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: <YtGOL4jIMQwoW5vb@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 15 Jul 2022 15:56:31 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     pbonzini@...hat.com, vkuznets@...hat.com, jmattson@...gle.com,
        joro@...tes.org, wanpengli@...cent.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: X86: Fix the comments in prepare_vmcs02_rare()

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022, Yu Zhang wrote:
> Although EB.PF in vmcs02 is still set by simply "or"ing the EB of
> vmcs01 and vmcs12, the explanation is obsolete. "enable_ept" being
> set is not the only reason for L0 to clear its EB.PF.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
> index 778f82015f03..634a7d218048 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
> @@ -2451,10 +2451,10 @@ static void prepare_vmcs02_rare(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, struct vmcs12 *vmcs12)
>  	 * is not easy (if at all possible?) to merge L0 and L1's desires, we
>  	 * simply ask to exit on each and every L2 page fault. This is done by
>  	 * setting MASK=MATCH=0 and (see below) EB.PF=1.
> -	 * Note that below we don't need special code to set EB.PF beyond the
> -	 * "or"ing of the EB of vmcs01 and vmcs12, because when enable_ept,
> -	 * vmcs01's EB.PF is 0 so the "or" will take vmcs12's value, and when
> -	 * !enable_ept, EB.PF is 1, so the "or" will always be 1.
> +	 * Note that EB.PF is set by "or"ing of the EB of vmcs01 and vmcs12,
> +	 * because when L0 has no desire to intercept #PF, vmcs01's EB.PF is 0
> +	 * so the "or" will take vmcs12's value, otherwise EB.PF is 1, so the
> +	 * "or" will always be 1.

Oof!  I was going to respond with a variety of nits (about the existing comment),
and even suggest that we address the TODO just out of sight, but looking at all
of this made me realize there's a bug here!  vmx_update_exception_bitmap() doesn't
update MASK and MATCH!

Hitting the bug is extremely unlikely, as it would require changing the guest's
MAXPHYADDR via KVM_SET_CPUID2 _after_ KVM_SET_NESTED_STATE, but before KVM_RUN
(because KVM now disallows changin CPUID after KVM_RUN).

During KVM_SET_CPUID2, KVM will invoke vmx_update_exception_bitmap() to refresh
the exception bitmap to handle the ept=1 && allow_smaller_maxphyaddr=1 scenario.
But when L2 is active, vmx_update_exception_bitmap() assumes vmcs02 already has
the correct MASK+MATCH because of the "clear both if KVM and L1 both want #PF"
behavior.  But if KVM's desire to intercept #PF changes from 0=>1, then KVM will
run L2 with the MASK+MATCH from vmcs12 because vmx_need_pf_intercept() would have
returned false at the time of prepare_vmcs02_rare().

Fixing the bug is fairly straightforward, and presents a good opportunity to
clean up the code (and this comment) and address the TODO.

Unless someone objects to my suggestion for patch 01, can you send a new version
of patch 01?  I'll send a separate series to fix this theoretical bug, avoid
writing MASK+MATCH when vmcs0x.EXCEPTION_BITMAP.PF+0, and to address the TODO.

E.g. I believe this is what we want to end up with:

	if (vmcs12)
		eb |= vmcs12->exception_bitmap;

	/*
	 * #PF is conditionally intercepted based on the #PF error code (PFEC)
	 * combined with the exception bitmap.  #PF is intercept if:
	 *
	 *    EXCEPTION_BITMAP.PF=1 && ((PFEC & MASK) == MATCH).
	 *
	 * If any #PF is being intercepted, update MASK+MATCH, otherwise leave
	 * them alone they do not affect interception (EXCEPTION_BITMAP.PF=0).
	 */
	if (eb & (1u << PF_VECTOR)) {
		/*
		 * If EPT is enabled, #PF is only intercepted if MAXPHYADDR is
		 * smaller on the guest than on the host.  In that case, KVM
		 * only needs to intercept present, non-reserved #PF.  If EPT
		 * is disabled, i.e. KVM is using shadow paging, KVM needs to
		 * intercept all #PF.  Note, whether or not KVM wants to
		 * intercept _any_ #PF is handled below.
		 */
		if (enable_ept) {
			pfec_mask = PFERR_PRESENT_MASK | PFERR_RSVD_MASK;
			pfec_match = PFERR_PRESENT_MASK;
		} else {
			pfec_mask = 0;
			pfec_match = 0;
		}

		if (!(vmcs12->exception_bitmap & (1u << PF_VECTOR))) {
			/* L1 doesn't want to intercept #PF, use KVM's MASK+MATCH. */
		} else if (!kvm_needs_pf_intercept) {
			/* KVM doesn't want to intercept #PF, use L1's MASK+MATCH. */
			pfec_mask = vmcs12->page_fault_error_code_mask;
			pfec_match = vmcs12->page_fault_error_code_match;
		} else if (pfec_mask != vmcs12->page_fault_error_code_mask ||
			   pfec_match != vmcs12->page_fault_error_code_mask) {
			/*
			 * KVM and L1 want to intercept #PF with different MASK
			 * and/or MATCH.  For simplicity, intercept all #PF by
			 * clearing MASK+MATCH.  Merging KVM's and L1's desires
			 * is quite complex, while the odds of meaningfully
			 * reducing what #PFs are intercept are low.
			 */
			pfec_mask = 0;
			pfec_match = 0;
		} else {
			/* KVM and L1 have identical MASK+MATCH. */
		}
		vmcs_write32(PAGE_FAULT_ERROR_CODE_MASK, pfec_mask);
		vmcs_write32(PAGE_FAULT_ERROR_CODE_MATCH, pfec_match);
	}