linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] s390/kvm: mask extra bits from program interrupt code

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: <20241031123815.8297-A-hca@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 13:38:15 +0100
From: Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, borntraeger@...ibm.com, nsg@...ux.ibm.com,
        nrb@...ux.ibm.com, frankja@...ux.ibm.com, seiden@...ux.ibm.com,
        agordeev@...ux.ibm.com, gor@...ux.ibm.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] s390/kvm: mask extra bits from program interrupt
 code

On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 01:03:16PM +0100, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> The program interrupt code has some extra bits that are sometimes set
> by hardware for various reasons; those bits should be ignored when the
> program interrupt number is needed for interrupt handling.
> 
> Fixes: ce2b276ebe51 ("s390/mm/fault: Handle guest-related program interrupts in KVM")
> Reported-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>
> ---
>  arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> index 8b3afda99397..f2d1351f6992 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> @@ -4737,7 +4737,7 @@ static int vcpu_post_run_handle_fault(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  	if (kvm_s390_cur_gmap_fault_is_write())
>  		flags = FAULT_FLAG_WRITE;
>  
> -	switch (current->thread.gmap_int_code) {
> +	switch (current->thread.gmap_int_code & PGM_INT_CODE_MASK) {

Can you give an example? When reviewing your patch I was aware of this, but
actually thought we do want to know when this happens, since the kernel did
something which causes such bits to be set; e.g. single stepping with PER
on the sie instruction. If that happens then such program interruptions
should not be passed for kvm handling, since that would indicate a host
kernel bug (the sie instruction is not allowed to be single stepped).

Or in other words: this should never happen. Of course I might have missed
something; so when could this happen where this is not a bug and the bits
should be ignored?