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: <ZcZMYrM_A7UAVIJv@google.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2024 08:01:38 -0800
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: paul@....org, 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>, 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 Thu, Feb 08, 2024, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Using anything except NULL as the "no value" value doesn't make sense
> to me. It violates the principle of least surprise and would be a
> really bad API.

I'm a-ok with using '0'.  My only request is to check for "!hva" as opposed to
"hva == 0", both because that's preferred kernel style, and because it better
conveys that it's really checking for !NULL as opposed to address '0'.

Side topic, I think the code will end up in a more readable state if the GFN vs.
HVA sub-commands are handled in separate case statements, especially if/when
xen_lock goes away.  E.g. something like this:

	case KVM_XEN_ATTR_TYPE_SHARED_INFO: {
		int idx;

		if (data->u.shared_info.gfn == KVM_XEN_INVALID_GFN) {
			kvm_gpc_deactivate(&kvm->arch.xen.shinfo_cache);
			r = 0;
			break;
		}

		idx = srcu_read_lock(&kvm->srcu);
		r = kvm_gpc_activate(&kvm->arch.xen.shinfo_cache,
				     gfn_to_gpa(data->u.shared_info.gfn), PAGE_SIZE);
		if (!r && kvm->arch.xen.shinfo_cache.active)
			r = kvm_xen_shared_info_init(kvm);
		srcu_read_unlock(&kvm->srcu, idx);
		break;
	}

	case KVM_XEN_ATTR_TYPE_SHARED_INFO_HVA: {
		unsigned long hva = data->u.shared_info.hva;

		if (hva != untagged_addr(hva) || !access_ok((void __user *)hva) ||
		    !PAGE_ALIGNED(hva)) {
			r = -EINVAL;
			break;
		}

		if (!hva) {
			kvm_gpc_deactivate(&kvm->arch.xen.shinfo_cache);
			r = 0;
			break;
		}
		r = kvm_gpc_activate_hva(&kvm->arch.xen.shinfo_cache, hva, PAGE_SIZE);
		if (!r && kvm->arch.xen.shinfo_cache.active)
			r = kvm_xen_shared_info_init(kvm);
		break;
	}

Side topic #2, the above requires that __kvm_gpc_refresh() not grab kvm_memslots()
in the "using an hva" path, but I think that'd actually be a good thing as it
would make it a bit more clear that using an hva bypasses memslots by design.