lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] KVM: prevent overlap between user and private memslots
From
Date
On 13/02/2018 04:38, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 12:49:21PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 10:57:16AM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
>>> +Cc alex.williamson@redhat.com
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 05:03:47PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>>>> 2018-01-19 17:01 GMT+08:00 Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>:
>>>>> 2018-01-19 16:18 GMT+08:00 Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@gmail.com>:
>>>>>> From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Memslots must not overlap in guest physical memory, since otherwise some
>>>>>> guest physical addresses will not uniquely map to a memslot. Yet, the
>>>>>> overlap check in __kvm_set_memory_region() allows a memslot that
>>>>>> overlaps one of the "private" memslots, e.g. the memslot reserved for
>>>>>> the TSS on x86.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This seems to be a very old bug that was introduced years ago when
>>>>>> private memory slots were first added. It seems that later refactoring
>>>>>> incorrectly assumed this bug was intentional and preserved it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fix it by removing the loophole for private memslots, so we just check
>>>>>> for overlap against all memslots.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This bug was found by syzkaller, which used a memslot overlap to make
>>>>>> pte_list_remove() be called for the wrong memslot, hitting a BUG():
>>>>>>
>>>>>> pte_list_remove: 000000007185ed42 0->BUG
>>>>>> kernel BUG at arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c:1209!
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> RIP: 0010:pte_list_remove+0x107/0x110 arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c:1208
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> Call Trace:
>>>>>> mmu_page_zap_pte+0x7e/0xd0 arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c:2499
>>>>>> kvm_mmu_page_unlink_children arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c:2521 [inline]
>>>>>> kvm_mmu_prepare_zap_page+0x4f/0x340 arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c:2565
>>>>>> kvm_zap_obsolete_pages arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c:5348 [inline]
>>>>>> kvm_mmu_invalidate_zap_all_pages+0xa6/0x100 arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c:5389
>>>>>> kvm_mmu_notifier_release+0x4f/0x80 arch/x86/kvm/../../../virt/kvm/kvm_main.c:468
>>>>>> __mmu_notifier_release+0x63/0x100 mm/mmu_notifier.c:75
>>>>>> mmu_notifier_release include/linux/mmu_notifier.h:244 [inline]
>>>>>> exit_mmap+0x160/0x170 mm/mmap.c:3009
>>>>>> __mmput kernel/fork.c:966 [inline]
>>>>>> mmput+0x44/0xd0 kernel/fork.c:987
>>>>>> exit_mm kernel/exit.c:544 [inline]
>>>>>> do_exit+0x24a/0xb50 kernel/exit.c:856
>>>>>> do_group_exit+0x34/0xb0 kernel/exit.c:972
>>>>>> SYSC_exit_group kernel/exit.c:983 [inline]
>>>>>> SyS_exit_group+0xb/0x10 kernel/exit.c:981
>>>>>> entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1e/0x8b
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reproducer:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #include <fcntl.h>
>>>>>> #include <linux/kvm.h>
>>>>>> #include <sys/ioctl.h>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> static char buf[4096*3] __attribute__((aligned(4096)));
>>>>>> int kvm, vm, cpu;
>>>>>> struct kvm_mp_state mp_state = { KVM_MP_STATE_SIPI_RECEIVED };
>>>>>> struct kvm_userspace_memory_region memreg = {
>>>>>> .memory_size = sizeof(buf),
>>>>>> .userspace_addr = (__u64)buf,
>>>>>> };
>>>>>>
>>>>>> kvm = open("/dev/kvm", O_RDWR);
>>>>>> vm = ioctl(kvm, KVM_CREATE_VM, 0);
>>>>>> ioctl(vm, KVM_CREATE_IRQCHIP);
>>>>>> cpu = ioctl(vm, KVM_CREATE_VCPU, 0);
>>>>>> ioctl(cpu, KVM_SET_MP_STATE, &mp_state);
>>>>>> ioctl(vm, KVM_SET_TSS_ADDR, 0);
>>>>>> ioctl(cpu, KVM_RUN, 0);
>>>>>> ioctl(vm, KVM_SET_USER_MEMORY_REGION, &memreg);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reported-by: syzbot <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>
>>>>>> Fixes: e0d62c7f4860 ("KVM: Add kernel-internal memory slots")
>>>>>> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v2.6.25+
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please refer to this one. https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9645377/
>>>>
>>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/27/57
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ah, so this was reported before, and you sent the same fix. Well, it was never
>>> applied, so the bug is still there, and anyone who can use /dev/kvm can trigger
>>> it. So one of these patches needs to be applied, unless there is a better fix.
>>>
>>> I don't agree with the "Fixes:" line in your version of the patch. The bug was
>>> actually there prior to 5419369ed, which might explain why that commit seemed to
>>> preserve the behavior intentionally. (Note that KVM_MEMORY_SLOTS did not
>>> include the private memory slots; it was later renamed to KVM_USER_MEM_SLOTS.)
>>>
>>> Eric
>>
>> Ping. Paolo or Radim, can you please consider applying one of these patches?

Applied, thanks.

Paolo

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-13 15:39    [W:0.048 / U:0.188 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site