linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] KVM: Fix for a mostly benign gpc WARN

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 14:28:19 +0000
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	syzbot+106a4f72b0474e1d1b33@...kaller.appspotmail.com, 
	Paul Durrant <paul@....org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] KVM: Fix for a mostly benign gpc WARN

On Tue, Apr 09, 2024, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2024-04-08 at 16:21 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2024-03-19 at 17:15 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > Fix a bug found by syzkaller, thanks to a new WARN sanity check, where KVM
> > > > marks a gfn_to_pfn_cache as active without actually setting gpc->gpa or any
> > > > other metadata.  On top, harden against _directly_ setting gpc->gpa to KVM's
> > > > magic INVALID_GPA, which would also fail the sanity check.
> > > > 
> > > > Sean Christopherson (3):
> > > >   KVM: Add helpers to consolidate gfn_to_pfn_cache's page split check
> > > >   KVM: Check validity of offset+length of gfn_to_pfn_cache prior to
> > > >     activation
> > > >   KVM: Explicitly disallow activatating a gfn_to_pfn_cache with
> > > >     INVALID_GPA
> > > 
> > > It looks like these conflict with
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20240227115648.3104-9-dwmw2@infradead.org/
> > > 
> > > Want to arrange them to come after it?
> > 
> > Very belated, yes.  Though by the time you read this, they should be in
> > kvm-x86/next.
> 
> Did that 'yes' mean 'no'? Because your three patches are in, but you
> didn't arrange them to come after my 'clean up rwlock abuse' patch, as
> you seemed to be saying 'yes' to...

Doh, I misread your question, multiple times.  I thought you were asking if I
wanted you to arrange your patches after this series.

Your series goes on top because I want to land this series in 6.9 to fix the
syzkaller splat (which was effectively introduced in 6.9), whereas your patch is
6.10 material.