linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] KVM: x86/mmu: Harden TDP MMU iteration against root w/o shadow 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]

Message-ID: <20230725103945.wfa5zdupen3oo6xl@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Jul 2023 18:39:45 +0800
From:   Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.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 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? 

It's not about guest using an invisible GFN, it's about a KVM bug, right?

> 
> 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?

B.R.
Yu