[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZL/wsIVpcpKs/9Nq@google.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 08:56:32 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Reima Ishii <ishiir@...cc.u-tokyo.ac.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] KVM: x86/mmu: Harden TDP MMU iteration against root
w/o shadow page
On Tue, Jul 25, 2023, Yu Zhang wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 06:23:48PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Explicitly check that tdp_iter_start() is handed a valid shadow page
> > to harden KVM against bugs where
>
> Sorry, where?
Gah, I must have seen something shiny when writing the changelog.
> It's not about guest using an invisible GFN, it's about a KVM bug, right?
Yes, the intent is to guard against a KVM bug, e.g. if KVM managed to get into
the TDP MMU with an invalid root, or a root belonging to a shadow MMU. I'll fix
the changelog in v2.
> > Opportunistically stop the TDP MMU iteration instead of continuing on
> > with garbage if the incoming root is bogus. Attempting to walk a garbage
> > root is more likely to caused major problems than doing nothing.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_iter.c | 11 ++++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_iter.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_iter.c
> > index d2eb0d4f8710..bd30ebfb2f2c 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_iter.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_iter.c
> > @@ -39,13 +39,14 @@ void tdp_iter_restart(struct tdp_iter *iter)
> > void tdp_iter_start(struct tdp_iter *iter, struct kvm_mmu_page *root,
> > int min_level, gfn_t next_last_level_gfn)
> > {
> > - int root_level = root->role.level;
> > -
> > - WARN_ON(root_level < 1);
> > - WARN_ON(root_level > PT64_ROOT_MAX_LEVEL);
> > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!root || (root->role.level < 1) ||
> > + (root->role.level > PT64_ROOT_MAX_LEVEL))) {
> > + iter->valid = false;
> > + return;
> > + }
> >
>
> I saw many usages of WARN_ON_ONCE() and WARN_ON() in KVM. And just wonder,
> is there any criteria for KVM when to use which?
Heh, already a step ahead of you :-)
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230721230006.2337941-5-seanjc@google.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists