linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH for-6.8 v4 1/3] LoongArch: KVM: Fix input validation of _kvm_get_cpucfg and kvm_check

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: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 19:57:38 +0800
From: maobibo <maobibo@...ngson.cn>
To: WANG Xuerui <kernel@...0n.name>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
 Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>
Cc: Tianrui Zhao <zhaotianrui@...ngson.cn>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
 loongarch@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 WANG Xuerui <git@...0n.name>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-6.8 v4 1/3] LoongArch: KVM: Fix input validation of
 _kvm_get_cpucfg and kvm_check_cpucfg



On 2024/2/22 下午6:51, WANG Xuerui wrote:
> From: WANG Xuerui <git@...0n.name>
> 
> The range check for the CPUCFG ID is wrong (should have been a ||
> instead of &&) and useless in effect, so fix the obvious mistake.
> 
> Furthermore, the juggling of the temp return value is unnecessary,
> because it is semantically equivalent and more readable to just
> return at every switch case's end. This is done too to avoid potential
> bugs in the future related to the unwanted complexity.
> 
> Also, the return value of _kvm_get_cpucfg is meant to be checked, but
> this was not done, so bad CPUCFG IDs wrongly fall back to the default
> case and 0 is incorrectly returned; check the return value to fix the
> UAPI behavior.
> 
> While at it, also remove the redundant range check in kvm_check_cpucfg,
> because out-of-range CPUCFG IDs are already rejected by the -EINVAL
> as returned by _kvm_get_cpucfg.
> 
> Fixes: db1ecca22edf ("LoongArch: KVM: Add LSX (128bit SIMD) support")
> Fixes: 118e10cd893d ("LoongArch: KVM: Add LASX (256bit SIMD) support")
> Signed-off-by: WANG Xuerui <git@...0n.name>
> ---
>   arch/loongarch/kvm/vcpu.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>   1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/loongarch/kvm/vcpu.c b/arch/loongarch/kvm/vcpu.c
> index 27701991886d..7fd32de6656b 100644
> --- a/arch/loongarch/kvm/vcpu.c
> +++ b/arch/loongarch/kvm/vcpu.c
> @@ -300,9 +300,7 @@ static int _kvm_setcsr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned int id, u64 val)
>   
>   static int _kvm_get_cpucfg(int id, u64 *v)
>   {
> -	int ret = 0;
> -
> -	if (id < 0 && id >= KVM_MAX_CPUCFG_REGS)
> +	if (id < 0 || id >= KVM_MAX_CPUCFG_REGS)
>   		return -EINVAL;
>   
>   	switch (id) {
> @@ -324,32 +322,35 @@ static int _kvm_get_cpucfg(int id, u64 *v)
>   		if (cpu_has_lasx)
>   			*v |= CPUCFG2_LASX;
>   
> -		break;
> +		return 0;
>   	default:
> -		ret = -EINVAL;
> -		break;
> +		/*
> +		 * No restrictions on other valid CPUCFG IDs' values, but
> +		 * CPUCFG data is limited to 32 bits as the LoongArch ISA
> +		 * manual says (Volume 1, Section 2.2.10.5 "CPUCFG").
> +		 */
> +		*v = U32_MAX;
> +		return 0;
>   	}
> -	return ret;
>   }
>   
>   static int kvm_check_cpucfg(int id, u64 val)
>   {
> -	u64 mask;
> -	int ret = 0;
> -
> -	if (id < 0 && id >= KVM_MAX_CPUCFG_REGS)
> -		return -EINVAL;
> +	u64 mask = 0;
> +	int ret;
>   
> -	if (_kvm_get_cpucfg(id, &mask))
> +	ret = _kvm_get_cpucfg(id, &mask);
> +	if (ret)
>   		return ret;
>   
> +	if (val & ~mask)
> +		/* Unsupported features and/or the higher 32 bits should not be set */
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
>   	switch (id) {
>   	case 2:
>   		/* CPUCFG2 features checking */
> -		if (val & ~mask)
> -			/* The unsupported features should not be set */
> -			ret = -EINVAL;
> -		else if (!(val & CPUCFG2_LLFTP))
> +		if (!(val & CPUCFG2_LLFTP))
>   			/* The LLFTP must be set, as guest must has a constant timer */
>   			ret = -EINVAL;
>   		else if ((val & CPUCFG2_FP) && (!(val & CPUCFG2_FPSP) || !(val & CPUCFG2_FPDP)))
> 

Thanks for your contributions -:)

Reviewed-by: Bibo Mao <maobibo@...ngson.cn>