linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] KVM: selftests: Make arm64's MMIO ucall multi-VM friendly

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: <YwY9BYDUeiT87/Vs@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Aug 2022 10:00:21 -0500
From:   Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@....com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
        kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        llvm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@...gle.com>,
        Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Jones <andrew.jones@...ux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] KVM: selftests: Make arm64's MMIO ucall multi-VM
 friendly

Hi Sean,

On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 03:21:14AM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Fix a mostly-theoretical bug where ARM's ucall MMIO setup could result in
> different VMs stomping on each other by cloberring the global pointer.
> 
> Fix the most obvious issue by saving the MMIO gpa into the VM.
> 
> A more subtle bug is that creating VMs in parallel (on multiple tasks)
> could result in a VM using the wrong address.  Synchronizing a global to
> a guest effectively snapshots the value on a per-VM basis, i.e. the
> "global" is already prepped to work with multiple VMs, but setting the
> global in the host and copying it to the guest needs to happen atomically.
> To fix that bug, add atomic_sync_global_pointer_to_guest() to sync
> "global" pointers that hold per-VM values, i.e. technically need to be
> handled in a thread-safe manner.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
> ---
>  .../selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util_base.h     | 16 +++++++++++++++
>  .../testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/ucall.c | 20 ++++++++++++++-----
>  2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util_base.h b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util_base.h
> index 24fde97f6121..9ec7fbe941aa 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util_base.h
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util_base.h
> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
>  #include <linux/kvm.h>
>  #include "linux/rbtree.h"
>  
> +#include <asm/atomic.h>
>  
>  #include <sys/ioctl.h>
>  
> @@ -81,6 +82,7 @@ struct kvm_vm {
>  	struct sparsebit *vpages_mapped;
>  	bool has_irqchip;
>  	bool pgd_created;
> +	vm_paddr_t ucall_mmio_addr;
>  	vm_paddr_t pgd;
>  	vm_vaddr_t gdt;
>  	vm_vaddr_t tss;
> @@ -714,6 +716,20 @@ kvm_userspace_memory_region_find(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint64_t start,
>  	memcpy(&(g), _p, sizeof(g));				\
>  })
>  
> +/*
> + * Sync a global pointer to the guest that has a per-VM value, in which case
> + * writes to the host copy of the "global" must be serialized (in case a test
> + * is being truly crazy and spawning multiple VMs concurrently).
> + */

Do we even care about writes to the host's copy of the global pointer?
I don't see how the host pointer is used beyond serializing writes into
a guest.

IOW, it looks as though we could skip the whole global illusion
altogether and write straight into guest memory.

--
Thanks,
Oliver