[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <86y0qycnb8.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2025 14:30:35 +0100
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>
Cc: Yingchao Deng <yingchao.deng@....qualcomm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
quic_yingdeng@...cinc.com,
jinlong.mao@....qualcomm.com,
tingwei.zhang@....qualcomm.com,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@....com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Zenghui Yu
<yuzenghui@...wei.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Fix NULL pointer access issue
On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 13:31:23 +0100,
James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 01/09/2025 1:24 pm, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 11:36:11 +0100,
> > James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 01/09/2025 11:01 am, Yingchao Deng wrote:
> >>> When linux is booted in EL1, macro "host_data_ptr()" is a wrapper that
> >>> resolves to "&per_cpu_ptr_nvhe_sym(kvm_host_data, cpu)",
> >>> is_hyp_mode_available() return false during kvm_arm_init, the per-CPU base
> >>> pointer __kvm_nvhe_kvm_arm_hyp_percpu_base[cpu] remains uninitialized.
> >>> Consequently, any access via per_cpu_ptr_nvhe_sym(kvm_host_data, cpu)
> >>> will result in a NULL pointer.
> >>>
> >>> Add is_kvm_arm_initialised() condition check to ensure that kvm_arm_init
> >>> completes all necessary initialization steps, including init_hyp_mode.
> >>>
> >>> Fixes: 054b88391bbe2 ("KVM: arm64: Support trace filtering for guests")
> >>> Signed-off-by: Yingchao Deng <yingchao.deng@....qualcomm.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> Add a check to prevent accessing uninitialized per-CPU data.
> >>> ---
> >>> arch/arm64/kvm/debug.c | 7 ++++---
> >>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/debug.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/debug.c
> >>> index 381382c19fe4741980c79b08bbdab6a1bcd825ad..add58056297293b4eb337028773b1b018ecc9d35 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/debug.c
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/debug.c
> >>> @@ -233,7 +233,7 @@ void kvm_debug_handle_oslar(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 val)
> >>> void kvm_enable_trbe(void)
> >>> {
> >>> if (has_vhe() || is_protected_kvm_enabled() ||
> >>> - WARN_ON_ONCE(preemptible()))
> >>> + WARN_ON_ONCE(preemptible()) || !is_kvm_arm_initialised())
> >>
> >> Hi Yingchao,
> >>
> >> There shouldn't be a warning for this, at least for the case where
> >> it's not initialized and never will be. If you're never going to run a
> >> guest these functions can all skip, the same way for !has_vhe() etc.
> >
> > It's not a warning. It's a bona-fide crash:
> >
> > void kvm_enable_trbe(void)
> > {
> > if (has_vhe() || is_protected_kvm_enabled() ||
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(preemptible()))
> > return;
> >
> > host_data_set_flag(TRBE_ENABLED); <--- Explodes here
> > }
> >
> > So the write of the flag has to be skipped if KVM is available, even
> > if KVM is compiled in.
> >
> > M.
> >
>
> Yeah. And just in case there is any confusion, I didn't mean that we
> should not have the check entirely, just that it shouldn't be in the
> WARN_ON_ONCE(). We should put it in the part that makes the functions
> silently skip:
>
> if (has_vhe() || is_protected_kvm_enabled() ||
> !is_kvm_arm_initialised() ||
> WARN_ON_ONCE(preemptible()))
> return;
Which is exactly what the OP wrote, except for swapping the last two
terms.
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists