linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 11/20] KVM: xen: allow shared

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: <92918ee8-3cc9-41c3-a284-5cd6648abc05@xen.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2024 08:52:06 +0000
From: Paul Durrant <xadimgnik@...il.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
 Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
 David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
 kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 11/20] KVM: xen: allow shared_info to be mapped by
 fixed HVA

On 07/02/2024 04:10, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2024, Paul Durrant wrote:
>> @@ -638,20 +637,32 @@ int kvm_xen_hvm_set_attr(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_xen_hvm_attr *data)
>>   		}
>>   		break;
>>   
>> -	case KVM_XEN_ATTR_TYPE_SHARED_INFO: {
>> +	case KVM_XEN_ATTR_TYPE_SHARED_INFO:
>> +	case KVM_XEN_ATTR_TYPE_SHARED_INFO_HVA: {
>>   		int idx;
>>   
>>   		mutex_lock(&kvm->arch.xen.xen_lock);
>>   
>>   		idx = srcu_read_lock(&kvm->srcu);
>>   
>> -		if (data->u.shared_info.gfn == KVM_XEN_INVALID_GFN) {
>> -			kvm_gpc_deactivate(&kvm->arch.xen.shinfo_cache);
>> -			r = 0;
>> +		if (data->type == KVM_XEN_ATTR_TYPE_SHARED_INFO) {
>> +			if (data->u.shared_info.gfn == KVM_XEN_INVALID_GFN) {
>> +				kvm_gpc_deactivate(&kvm->arch.xen.shinfo_cache);
>> +				r = 0;
>> +			} else {
>> +				r = kvm_gpc_activate(&kvm->arch.xen.shinfo_cache,
>> +						     gfn_to_gpa(data->u.shared_info.gfn),
>> +						     PAGE_SIZE);
>> +			}
>>   		} else {
>> -			r = kvm_gpc_activate(&kvm->arch.xen.shinfo_cache,
>> -					     gfn_to_gpa(data->u.shared_info.gfn),
>> -					     PAGE_SIZE);
>> +			if (data->u.shared_info.hva == 0) {
> 
> I know I said I don't care about the KVM Xen ABI, but I still think using '0' as
> "invalid" is ridiculous.
> 

With the benefit of some sleep, I'm wondering why 0 is a 'ridiculous' 
invalid value for a *virtual* address? Surely it's essentially a 
numerical cast of the canonically invalid NULL pointer?

   Paul