From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF61F42FCC9; Wed, 22 Jul 2026 08:38:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784709488; cv=none; b=lKz6FaPpUeuT9Tsm81xogX8vy21QVhDuLuNPLC7GevZtHiOuGbJXvKki5qbt3QP09/dDRLam8zwGCbi5qahZq7B+DmgrQbxMp7Fm9rMQ8WpW8fxdysi6ka+4bOcSTXGJj0PcaWtSQGZXg5G+m5H8NVTi5YuOiiogVcbZhKCJa0w= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784709488; c=relaxed/simple; bh=8D0BxG4eaYm/ikiaqKAoB7Me6EP7g1RztoUF7Ip9cgs=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=FUHlXYW0g04z48X9K0teqj5sOs5D0GXV7vJWly08NCcOiNgVfVCrVoM8qZUg0j0fwB++ZI4DFowIScuTlNi+Qke7SfHcbN+5JaHfbG9sXCTgdATACRJh7eo/o0w0FxV8iMfRzKyeEq3d66nBcmv6jwcooaPSZxc5ozB1KVR15ws= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=FtmaWn4a; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="FtmaWn4a" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C0BD11F000E9; Wed, 22 Jul 2026 08:38:03 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1784709484; bh=do6Z/xLKRrnkGvua9CYbifedqBjEtJiAG/B7H9slZvM=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=FtmaWn4auZobQm2Xdcka9BK/bC9tdzggeulp3lna9vT3pNGImY5pIGd2jKmisAzdh 8VB9DSyX6vH9bvVvo4OVPKV9hjCLSSqiHVFe8psrf2TAZnaE2IZY/J9K7nEGgR/FnY XJ6/Q4YTPxv9wJbfSpaloPtUO5kYVyBJBZjHxYJT18dDksTJz/MkMzo59oRDPBr6pf lkq3DSNtx1qDY/cUDEmbO052fJbgprAt38EZ4Rr6w0baIb2M5rzJbtJjZP603SeeQx HJKE5wHu1tiCtaAQSAnZN/ermvNygZKspByhDchDMKWJwYEsPbdMpl9XNG8Dyksz9T YO1Bm+zvPI8QA== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 20/28] KVM: arm64: Add sanitisation for NVHCR_EL2 Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Marc Zyngier" Cc: "Oliver Upton" , "Marc Zyngier" , kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, kvm@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260722074234.3330999-21-maz@kernel.org> References: <20260722074234.3330999-1-maz@kernel.org> <20260722074234.3330999-21-maz@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2026 08:38:03 +0000 Message-Id: <20260722083803.C0BD11F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvmarm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(= s) to consider: Pre-existing issues: - [High] Subsystem rule violation: Numeric range loop over sparse `enum vcp= u_sysreg` -- --- Patch [20]: [PATCH v3 20/28] KVM: arm64: Add sanitisation for NVHCR_EL2= --- commit b143c0689f4a9db3345ab50e6a712d0698ebaa75 Author: Marc Zyngier KVM: arm64: Add sanitisation for NVHCR_EL2 This commit adds sanitisation support for the NVHCR_EL2 register. It mimics the format of HCR_EL2 but conditionally depends on FEAT_NV3 being present. If FEAT_NV3 is absent, it relies on standard VNCR data transfers. [ ... ] > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/nested.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/nested.c > index 82be8bcb07035..34e63480886cd 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/nested.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/nested.c > @@ -1828,6 +1828,10 @@ int kvm_init_nv_sysregs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > resx =3D get_reg_fixed_bits(kvm, HCR_EL2); > set_sysreg_masks(kvm, HCR_EL2, resx); > =20 > + /* NVHCR_EL2 */ > + resx =3D get_reg_fixed_bits(kvm, NVHCR_EL2); > + set_sysreg_masks(kvm, NVHCR_EL2, resx); > + > /* HCRX_EL2 */ > resx =3D get_reg_fixed_bits(kvm, HCRX_EL2); > set_sysreg_masks(kvm, HCRX_EL2, resx); [Severity: High] This is a pre-existing issue, but later in kvm_init_nv_sysregs() there is a loop over enum vcpu_sysreg: for (enum vcpu_sysreg sr =3D __SANITISED_REG_START__; sr < NR_SYS_REGS; sr= ++) __vcpu_rmw_sys_reg(vcpu, sr, |=3D, 0); Does this numeric range loop iterate over unintended registers? The KVM ARM64 subsystem guidelines state that enum vcpu_sysreg is sparsely numbered by VNCR byte offsets. Using a < comparison and incrementing over a numeric range touches register indices that happen to fall within the byte span. Could this silently drop or corrupt guest state by applying operations to unrelated registers? --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260722074234.3330= 999-1-maz@kernel.org?part=3D20