linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Validate input range for pKVM mem transitions

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: <aMx351jkCPIv_j61@linux.dev>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2025 14:21:43 -0700
From: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>
To: Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@...gle.com>
Cc: maz@...nel.org, joey.gouly@....com, suzuki.poulose@....com,
	yuzenghui@...wei.com, catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org,
	qperret@...gle.com, sebastianene@...gle.com, keirf@...gle.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Validate input range for pKVM mem transitions

On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 07:00:49PM +0100, Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> There's currently no verification for host issued ranges in most of the
> pKVM memory transitions. The subsequent end boundary might therefore be
> subject to overflow and could evade the later checks.
> 
> Close this loophole with an additional range_is_valid() check on a per
> public function basis.
> 
> host_unshare_guest transition is already protected via
> __check_host_shared_guest(), while assert_host_shared_guest() callers
> are already ignoring host checks.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@...gle.com>
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> index 8957734d6183..b156fb0bad0f 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> @@ -443,6 +443,11 @@ static bool range_is_memory(u64 start, u64 end)
>  	return is_in_mem_range(end - 1, &r);
>  }
>  
> +static bool range_is_valid(u64 start, u64 end)
> +{
> +	return start < end;
> +}
> +

I'm being unnecessarily pedantic but isn't something like [-2MiB, 0) a
legal range if we had 64 bits of PA? Looks correct though so:

Reviewed-by: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>

Thanks,
Oliver