From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sean Christopherson Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 09:17:36 -0700 Subject: [PATCH v2 04/13] KVM: selftests: Assert that vcpu_{g,s}et_reg() won't truncate In-Reply-To: <20240912-75f992936cd9878d0e507498@orel> References: <20240911204158.2034295-1-seanjc@google.com> <20240911204158.2034295-5-seanjc@google.com> <20240912-75f992936cd9878d0e507498@orel> Message-ID: List-Id: To: kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, Sep 12, 2024, Andrew Jones wrote: > On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 01:41:49PM GMT, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > Assert that the the register being read/written by vcpu_{g,s}et_reg() is > > no larger than a uint64_t, i.e. that a selftest isn't unintentionally > > truncating the value being read/written. > > > > Ideally, the assert would be done at compile-time, but that would limit > > the checks to hardcoded accesses and/or require fancier compile-time > > assertion infrastructure to filter out dynamic usage. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson > > --- > > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h | 4 ++++ > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h > > index 429a7f003fe3..80230e49e35f 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h > > @@ -683,6 +683,8 @@ static inline uint64_t vcpu_get_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, uint64_t id) > > uint64_t val; > > struct kvm_one_reg reg = { .id = id, .addr = (uint64_t)&val }; > > > > + TEST_ASSERT(KVM_REG_SIZE(id) <= sizeof(val), "Reg %lx too big", id); > > + > > vcpu_ioctl(vcpu, KVM_GET_ONE_REG, ®); > > return val; > > } > > @@ -690,6 +692,8 @@ static inline void vcpu_set_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, uint64_t id, uint64_t val > > { > > struct kvm_one_reg reg = { .id = id, .addr = (uint64_t)&val }; > > > > + TEST_ASSERT(KVM_REG_SIZE(id) <= sizeof(val), "Reg %lx too big", id); > > + > > vcpu_ioctl(vcpu, KVM_SET_ONE_REG, ®); > > } > > > > -- > > 2.46.0.598.g6f2099f65c-goog > > > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones > > Shouldn't patches 3 and 4 come before patch 2 in this series? Ideally, yes, but for this patch, it gets weird because the output param of vcpu_reg_get() isn't actually restricted to a 64-bit value prior to patch 2. E.g. if this patch were merged without that rework, then the assert would be confusing and arguably flat out wrong. As for the hack-a-fix, I deliberately ordered it after patch 2 so that it would be easier for others to (try to) reproduce the bug. I have no objection to swapping 2 and 3 in the next version. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-yb1-f202.google.com (mail-yb1-f202.google.com [209.85.219.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30CB63A1DB for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2024 16:17:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.219.202 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1726157860; cv=none; b=NgYeidZU05o42robCRUt7Fre1IFGzU7QPGaDCtD9meIG3YmlEAwIRrkHhAygckEf5ldQxIXcJmasBCzj+LLAVDOGCZt4d8rxUPSeXLav4dEu8xM1Bx/g85vfGHVcTJBke6gOd10awzdUGByijHEhcgPW5Jv/QIHXidlikl9Ioqk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1726157860; c=relaxed/simple; bh=sqOCBmz0NeGoOmrLe8YUpkiZEdcp2a6gTbuVlBFKGwY=; h=Date:In-Reply-To:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=fUWFoj3g2cNWQNapvQ+Y21cZ6OdRH0KRy9shmE2SS5D63giJAlY2w+p9lhKNP2ugIZOFTtU7NgZ8627Psq4bP12SJvtQ3weGce6i5YHS9t+nG36s+WhPYk+dd1V1ayZ2j0SOXKELlZ72uzMuO5MXvhdiT9EoSoY1lvZHFszy9wI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flex--seanjc.bounces.google.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b=VR32OBzf; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.219.202 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flex--seanjc.bounces.google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="VR32OBzf" Received: by mail-yb1-f202.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-e1a74f824f9so2101258276.1 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2024 09:17:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20230601; t=1726157858; x=1726762658; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=CHc8H+AgFlKGz9oROxRBwufdfanAh7CzUD+9HRa3+GA=; b=VR32OBzfvOz14JfapTbYgxzaKPXvxL4zmrESNKyDBn2w+18hrpsigrgpGkQSDSfYWz PtidutRCuzrgeAbnHx9A7FtYBc6XoAYICw/6H1Mp6fZjpEdNglJMZua35Fr1PayQPI3s FNiKE+7PjIm/1O4FfmpBq7h2/kEI1LXdOE94nDAXk5POKEBFYeUJ8BLCVnDrBje6rltd fw+zGuEFHHkKK8TmFFURBrvN7XCobigjWrJ5+vRbgNT8954d3iMDfV5RiuU/pdJWG1Ia jBvePS4ndx+YpN3UQepo2vnjTY059gQP6iQ5ifMWtLbaYuNymdRrk4V+djX+F40LaamI LqDQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1726157858; x=1726762658; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=CHc8H+AgFlKGz9oROxRBwufdfanAh7CzUD+9HRa3+GA=; b=tvifeM4AZeaWlGjm9nDwOCzIXqHO2GYLiI6vaojA3HauoIYo2V9n4ywBOMviTuPWF7 IDb8wRhx8oN39p0srHP+A1AAb2Q+PZ/1nssx0SorQHu/EFC7X/+2O3v2DP0LG5MFLeQ7 c3mo5Qs8tcVPXcQh/9X1v8mQ/VmvIrID7iKPz/7sxsoqTjcQ/sEJ1FFpUfyhEP+d+P6K 7uR0SXMBZ8a2ygiva2Ck8Z9J65U6uOaPQZorbxQ4uwEZ7ftGubKaazE8Ra0LGKfUiuPu AlEEYKd4nzvlfVREVa1v6r/lXycJ00aLUk5w1ZczOjr+hsmxTwUCzPJAKPYkiT6WS3ju vl8A== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCW2Gbk+5kMCLRs7hmhlRHfoK4pNBpP1gDRp15waDTJ03ia/WIUYUnTd9hkIn8p0fSQrJ2g=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwUHLLirx92D9/QuvUwuUqKxKxNOLJsyYaOnYX71lOcP3k3AR1P qzQKok4PsPuNGKlXLEDZsszXcQTURrGSHTmTQO7sBD8WcxIAr9qeJH5SeHazA7yrJtHRdyQnNla /PA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEJVscKJvuinHeLuj6Vk0WsuDDxtUgSvi9YqWgJNhdyRuKGPX9aioKoGnIVhZDgsM2BQvZ5JjUQZqU= X-Received: from zagreus.c.googlers.com ([fda3:e722:ac3:cc00:7f:e700:c0a8:5c37]) (user=seanjc job=sendgmr) by 2002:a25:86c4:0:b0:e11:5e94:17dc with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-e1d9dbd0464mr4681276.5.1726157858129; Thu, 12 Sep 2024 09:17:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 09:17:36 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20240912-75f992936cd9878d0e507498@orel> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 References: <20240911204158.2034295-1-seanjc@google.com> <20240911204158.2034295-5-seanjc@google.com> <20240912-75f992936cd9878d0e507498@orel> Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/13] KVM: selftests: Assert that vcpu_{g,s}et_reg() won't truncate From: Sean Christopherson To: Andrew Jones Cc: Marc Zyngier , Oliver Upton , Anup Patel , Paolo Bonzini , Christian Borntraeger , Janosch Frank , Claudio Imbrenda , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, James Houghton Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Thu, Sep 12, 2024, Andrew Jones wrote: > On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 01:41:49PM GMT, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > Assert that the the register being read/written by vcpu_{g,s}et_reg() is > > no larger than a uint64_t, i.e. that a selftest isn't unintentionally > > truncating the value being read/written. > > > > Ideally, the assert would be done at compile-time, but that would limit > > the checks to hardcoded accesses and/or require fancier compile-time > > assertion infrastructure to filter out dynamic usage. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson > > --- > > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h | 4 ++++ > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h > > index 429a7f003fe3..80230e49e35f 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h > > @@ -683,6 +683,8 @@ static inline uint64_t vcpu_get_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, uint64_t id) > > uint64_t val; > > struct kvm_one_reg reg = { .id = id, .addr = (uint64_t)&val }; > > > > + TEST_ASSERT(KVM_REG_SIZE(id) <= sizeof(val), "Reg %lx too big", id); > > + > > vcpu_ioctl(vcpu, KVM_GET_ONE_REG, ®); > > return val; > > } > > @@ -690,6 +692,8 @@ static inline void vcpu_set_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, uint64_t id, uint64_t val > > { > > struct kvm_one_reg reg = { .id = id, .addr = (uint64_t)&val }; > > > > + TEST_ASSERT(KVM_REG_SIZE(id) <= sizeof(val), "Reg %lx too big", id); > > + > > vcpu_ioctl(vcpu, KVM_SET_ONE_REG, ®); > > } > > > > -- > > 2.46.0.598.g6f2099f65c-goog > > > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones > > Shouldn't patches 3 and 4 come before patch 2 in this series? Ideally, yes, but for this patch, it gets weird because the output param of vcpu_reg_get() isn't actually restricted to a 64-bit value prior to patch 2. E.g. if this patch were merged without that rework, then the assert would be confusing and arguably flat out wrong. As for the hack-a-fix, I deliberately ordered it after patch 2 so that it would be easier for others to (try to) reproduce the bug. I have no objection to swapping 2 and 3 in the next version. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 300CAEED617 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2024 16:18:53 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID: References:Mime-Version:In-Reply-To:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=ZzKd1yohNdBXwCG00n7E2WneHCeP1kMtnWEZQOLm6S4=; b=UrE14422RVsr0drGjhjGCHAZ1j JRUQpGD423giHv21pQx+CrbORsDvPsTQtPRndhbnUktIeD1HxV8ljr4hgeAIPuGZ485WV2IJZXLOX hIkABe+Uti0mWhiVqJFsVCPOzj2n6x6CxscA3RdJRh7m+Lmd4kltexAmcmSPN7OvCa8QrRroYzB9u 9sG2dXSGnz4Kto0z10FhuTccw8wqsVG3CCWIHi7lJ7OI8DmxUdYYXzAGOtGIDe03Yi66ck26rLyi6 Rv3EgE27GwDllxOT5CJr5A/9ZmCspNIYQ3Bhur1g9t2JhXlfpG57l2ng9b7UnSOY29nM7LCSK5r8l TNN6Z9GQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1somWt-0000000DgHb-1EyW; Thu, 12 Sep 2024 16:18:47 +0000 Received: from mail-yb1-xb4a.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::b4a]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1somVo-0000000DgB7-1g4e for linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 12 Sep 2024 16:17:41 +0000 Received: by mail-yb1-xb4a.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-e1a6d328eacso2146667276.3 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2024 09:17:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20230601; t=1726157858; x=1726762658; darn=lists.infradead.org; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=CHc8H+AgFlKGz9oROxRBwufdfanAh7CzUD+9HRa3+GA=; b=uq33ZtgMtdGAvJWfftdEpk1qFrmZx3KrPAHQ6mm7hm1TlilU90A2dcYaPboMDJwxPH i6f+uYwNnPjrBqK9PvyXEUroCDmuKkTaeDbsUzmu9E16SntRxWNpaSpvT+fnbN9EnjT+ dpHBRh4lrMSVn1jAqqz+dCxVypOFhQV03cYv0aTZwn3bDNt/HzM8aTbDjN8GScSOhPHn uepcwSNzA/4HhLL1ws2qwBqQUs5EqbI+qIunhQ+zJ5hmE1DDwh8H5EdP1+6WmduyAmFs XW8yYV1f6LIqogExyNF9qG0OSnYQZZVfpsuSG6vzVoZrLHz6Wcomr92CH+f1YUdI/Tde pmBQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1726157858; x=1726762658; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=CHc8H+AgFlKGz9oROxRBwufdfanAh7CzUD+9HRa3+GA=; b=bs6jXmB2f/IMp0sFdhVjQgfEuJhhE0LFejRiPoEF4RblYHFlNQNo4y0IKLENPDithd icJra2JQ1lCe4anIuo+jzexenLCVihH71nmR+dIPY63qIFpLiNjtb/ugnm17BaAEWu0h b81K67z8R8Ro8m/mMzsccJ1i51n/RmgDqc4zXzjDM2NsRTzQ88vqCegIYAKV5qC4mg+Y VbRYfYdZnlhkgG8mTz9uzY5e6ZvnTnXkXP3BWACQrzzhVSrWHIY3GBO/RzMsaLjsQ44N dXvjfXy/Nmxr8CxOGI9ca9uwTNS8m/t1DCU06NjkiZ8NrJs0YpG4LBKdfvHGgJMWcP0w qyAQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXnz2O2r/EcelRxbkbzXYyTxz1NG9B5VnSKnKpDxZgec7AaZR/LdiLZxRHkJimkLsZCeXcWFEh3t5RHUg==@lists.infradead.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yy/d9YG6c4yeI0uIa+8TSm5FTGKbG/sFDWlEUthnx9/fXBvMMdl 3z5TP6Vcum2h3bEPhMD16QJ9pAwKhCq3PtGPGZm9PYSTLZQ82cZoxVK0slRpVWxSLtcEsM8uBdi NPA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEJVscKJvuinHeLuj6Vk0WsuDDxtUgSvi9YqWgJNhdyRuKGPX9aioKoGnIVhZDgsM2BQvZ5JjUQZqU= X-Received: from zagreus.c.googlers.com ([fda3:e722:ac3:cc00:7f:e700:c0a8:5c37]) (user=seanjc job=sendgmr) by 2002:a25:86c4:0:b0:e11:5e94:17dc with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-e1d9dbd0464mr4681276.5.1726157858129; Thu, 12 Sep 2024 09:17:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 09:17:36 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20240912-75f992936cd9878d0e507498@orel> Mime-Version: 1.0 References: <20240911204158.2034295-1-seanjc@google.com> <20240911204158.2034295-5-seanjc@google.com> <20240912-75f992936cd9878d0e507498@orel> Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/13] KVM: selftests: Assert that vcpu_{g,s}et_reg() won't truncate From: Sean Christopherson To: Andrew Jones Cc: Marc Zyngier , Oliver Upton , Anup Patel , Paolo Bonzini , Christian Borntraeger , Janosch Frank , Claudio Imbrenda , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, James Houghton X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20240912_091740_444929_6C21FEFF X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 19.16 ) X-BeenThere: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-riscv" Errors-To: linux-riscv-bounces+linux-riscv=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Thu, Sep 12, 2024, Andrew Jones wrote: > On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 01:41:49PM GMT, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > Assert that the the register being read/written by vcpu_{g,s}et_reg() is > > no larger than a uint64_t, i.e. that a selftest isn't unintentionally > > truncating the value being read/written. > > > > Ideally, the assert would be done at compile-time, but that would limit > > the checks to hardcoded accesses and/or require fancier compile-time > > assertion infrastructure to filter out dynamic usage. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson > > --- > > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h | 4 ++++ > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h > > index 429a7f003fe3..80230e49e35f 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h > > @@ -683,6 +683,8 @@ static inline uint64_t vcpu_get_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, uint64_t id) > > uint64_t val; > > struct kvm_one_reg reg = { .id = id, .addr = (uint64_t)&val }; > > > > + TEST_ASSERT(KVM_REG_SIZE(id) <= sizeof(val), "Reg %lx too big", id); > > + > > vcpu_ioctl(vcpu, KVM_GET_ONE_REG, ®); > > return val; > > } > > @@ -690,6 +692,8 @@ static inline void vcpu_set_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, uint64_t id, uint64_t val > > { > > struct kvm_one_reg reg = { .id = id, .addr = (uint64_t)&val }; > > > > + TEST_ASSERT(KVM_REG_SIZE(id) <= sizeof(val), "Reg %lx too big", id); > > + > > vcpu_ioctl(vcpu, KVM_SET_ONE_REG, ®); > > } > > > > -- > > 2.46.0.598.g6f2099f65c-goog > > > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones > > Shouldn't patches 3 and 4 come before patch 2 in this series? Ideally, yes, but for this patch, it gets weird because the output param of vcpu_reg_get() isn't actually restricted to a 64-bit value prior to patch 2. E.g. if this patch were merged without that rework, then the assert would be confusing and arguably flat out wrong. As for the hack-a-fix, I deliberately ordered it after patch 2 so that it would be easier for others to (try to) reproduce the bug. I have no objection to swapping 2 and 3 in the next version. _______________________________________________ linux-riscv mailing list linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv