From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sean Christopherson Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] kvm: x86/vmx: Use kzalloc for cached_vmcs12 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 18:43:04 -0800 Message-ID: <20190115024304.GD5141@linux.intel.com> References: <6f79d9be-fa76-3a06-2612-f44f3a18ece7@redhat.com> <20190114234728.49239-1-tmroeder@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Paolo Bonzini , Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= , Liran Alon , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , "H . Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, syzbot+ded1696f6b50b615b630@syzkaller.appspotmail.com To: Tom Roeder Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190114234728.49239-1-tmroeder@google.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 03:47:28PM -0800, Tom Roeder wrote: > This changes the allocation of cached_vmcs12 to use kzalloc instead of > kmalloc. This removes the information leak found by Syzkaller (see > Reported-by) in this case and prevents similar leaks from happening > based on cached_vmcs12. Is the leak specific to vmx_set_nested_state(), e.g. can we zero out the memory if copy_from_user() fails instead of taking the hit on every allocation? > The email from Syszkaller led to a discussion about a patch in early > November on the KVM list (I've made this a reply to that thread), but > the current upstream kernel still has kmalloc instead of kzalloc for > cached_vmcs12 and cached_shadow_vmcs12. This RFC proposes changing to > kzalloc for defense in depth. > > Tested: rebuilt but not tested, since this is an RFC > > Reported-by: syzbot+ded1696f6b50b615b630@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > Signed-off-by: Tom Roeder > --- > arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c > index 2616bd2c7f2c7..ad46667042c7a 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c > @@ -4140,11 +4140,11 @@ static int enter_vmx_operation(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > if (r < 0) > goto out_vmcs02; > > - vmx->nested.cached_vmcs12 = kmalloc(VMCS12_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL); > + vmx->nested.cached_vmcs12 = kzalloc(VMCS12_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL); > if (!vmx->nested.cached_vmcs12) > goto out_cached_vmcs12; Obviously not your code, but why do we allocate VMCS12_SIZE instead of sizeof(struct vmcs12)? I get why we require userspace to reserve the full 4k, but I don't understand why KVM needs to allocate the reserved bytes internally. > - vmx->nested.cached_shadow_vmcs12 = kmalloc(VMCS12_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL); > + vmx->nested.cached_shadow_vmcs12 = kzalloc(VMCS12_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL); > if (!vmx->nested.cached_shadow_vmcs12) > goto out_cached_shadow_vmcs12; > > -- > 2.20.1.97.g81188d93c3-goog >