linux-kernel - Re: [Discussion] Undocumented behavior of KVM_SET

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: <aK3z92uBZNcVQGf7@google.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2025 10:50:47 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Jiaming Zhang <r772577952@...il.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, pbonzini@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	syzkaller@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Discussion] Undocumented behavior of KVM_SET_PIT2 with count=0

On Mon, Aug 25, 2025, Jiaming Zhang wrote:
> Hello KVM maintainers and developers,
> 
> I hope this email finds you well.
> 
> While fuzzing the KVM subsystem with our modified version of syzkaller
> on Linux Kernel, I came across an interesting behavior with the
> KVM_SET_PIT2 and KVM_GET_PIT2 ioctls.
> 
> Specifically, when setting kvm_pit_state2.channels[c].count to 0 via
> KVM_SET_PIT2 and then immediately reading the state back with
> KVM_GET_PIT2, the returned count is 65536 (0x10000). This behavior
> might be surprising for developers because, intuitively, the data
> output via GET should be consistent with the data input via SET. I
> could not find this special case mentioned in the KVM API
> documentation (Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst).
> 
> After looking into the kernel source (arch/x86/kvm/i8254.c), I
> understand this conversion is by design. It correctly emulates the
> physical i8254 PIT, which treats a programmed count of 0 as its
> maximum value (2^16). While the hardware emulation is perfectly
> correct, it may potentially be confusing for users.
> 
> To prevent future confusion and improve the API's clarity, I believe
> it would be beneficial to add a note to the documentation explaining
> this special handling for count = 0.
> 
> I'm bringing this to your attention to ask for your thoughts. If you
> agree, I would be happy to prepare and submit a documentation patch to
> clarify this.

I have no objection, especially since you're volunteering to do the work of
actually writing the documentation :-)

Somewhat of a side topic, I expect KVM_SET_LAPIC and KVM_GET_LAPIC have similar
behavior, as KVM applies fixup on the incoming local APIC state, e.g. to force
LDR for x2APIC mode according to hardware specs.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are other SET+GET pairs that aren't "pure".
If you run into more surprises, definitely free to submit documentation patches.