linux-kernel - Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 01/27] drm/i915/gvt: Verify pfn is "valid" before dereferencing "struct page"

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]

Date:   Wed, 15 Mar 2023 12:23:20 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@...el.com>
Cc:     Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@...el.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@...ux.intel.com>,
        Zhi Wang <zhi.a.wang@...el.com>,
        Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org" <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>,
        "intel-gvt-dev@...ts.freedesktop.org" 
        <intel-gvt-dev@...ts.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 01/27] drm/i915/gvt: Verify pfn is "valid"
 before dereferencing "struct page"

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> On 13.03.2023 16:37, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 11, 2023 8:23 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/gtt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/gtt.c
> > > index 4ec85308379a..58b9b316ae46 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/gtt.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/gtt.c
> > > @@ -1183,6 +1183,10 @@ static int is_2MB_gtt_possible(struct intel_vgpu
> > > *vgpu,
> > >   	pfn = gfn_to_pfn(vgpu->vfio_device.kvm, ops->get_pfn(entry));
> > >   	if (is_error_noslot_pfn(pfn))
> > >   		return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > > +	if (!pfn_valid(pfn))
> > > +		return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > 
> > Merge the two errors in one "if" to have less LOC?
> > i.e.
> > if (is_error_noslot_pfn(pfn) || !pfn_valid(pfn))
> >      return -EINVAL;
> 
> you can just replace "if (is_error_noslot_pfn(pfn))" with "if
> (!pfn_valid(pfn))", it covers both cases.

Technically, yes, but the two checks are for very different things.  Practically
speaking, there can never be false negatives without KVM breaking horribly as
overlap between struct page pfns and KVM's error/noslot would prevent mapping
legal memory into a KVM guest.  But I'd rather not hide the "did KVM find a valid
mapping" in the "is this pfn backed by struct page" check, especially since this
code goes away entirely by the end of the series.