All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sebastian Ene via OP-TEE <op-tee@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
To: Mostafa Saleh <smostafa@google.com>
Cc: op-tee@lists.trustedfirmware.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	maz@kernel.org, oupton@kernel.org, joey.gouly@arm.com,
	suzuki.poulose@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
	sumit.garg@kernel.org, vdonnefort@google.com,
	sudeep.holla@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/6] KVM: arm64: Fix bounds checking in do_ffa_mem_reclaim()
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 14:22:25 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aiwWIRS-l-SS-wcK@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260527150236.1978655-5-smostafa@google.com>

On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 03:02:34PM +0000, Mostafa Saleh wrote:
> Sashiko (locally) reports out of bound write possiblity if SPMD
> returns an invalid data.
> 
> While SPMD is considered trusted, pKVM does some basic checks,
> for offset to be less than or equal len.
> 
> However, that is incorrect as even if the offset is smaller than
> len pKVM can still access out of bound memory in the next
> ffa_host_unshare_ranges().
> 
> Split this check into 2:
> 1- Check that the fixed portion of the descriptor fits.
> 2- After getting reg, check the variable array size addr_range_cnt
>    fits.
> 
> Also, drop the WARN_ONs as that will panic the kernel and in the
> next checks there are no WARNs, so that makes it consistent.
> 
> Fixes: 0a9f15fd5674 ("KVM: arm64: pkvm: Add support for fragmented FF-A descriptors")
> Signed-off-by: Mostafa Saleh <smostafa@google.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c | 9 +++++++--
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c
> index 1af722771178..b6cf9ad82e12 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c
> @@ -607,8 +607,8 @@ static void do_ffa_mem_reclaim(struct arm_smccc_1_2_regs *res,
>  	 * check that we end up with something that doesn't look _completely_
>  	 * bogus.
>  	 */
> -	if (WARN_ON(offset > len ||
> -		    fraglen > KVM_FFA_MBOX_NR_PAGES * PAGE_SIZE)) {
> +	if (offset + CONSTITUENTS_OFFSET(0) > len ||
> +	    fraglen > KVM_FFA_MBOX_NR_PAGES * PAGE_SIZE) {
>  		ret = FFA_RET_ABORTED;
>  		ffa_rx_release(res);
>  		goto out_unlock;
> @@ -641,6 +641,11 @@ static void do_ffa_mem_reclaim(struct arm_smccc_1_2_regs *res,
>  		goto out_unlock;
>  
>  	reg = (void *)buf + offset;
> +	if (offset + CONSTITUENTS_OFFSET(reg->addr_range_cnt) > len) {
> +		ret = FFA_RET_ABORTED;
> +		goto out_unlock;
> +	}
> +

I wonder if we should do this check first and then mem_reclaim, the rational being that if the check fails
the page will be lost forever.

```
	reg = (void *)buf + offset;                                                                                                                                                                            
	if (offset + CONSTITUENTS_OFFSET(reg->addr_range_cnt) > len) {                                                                                                                                         
		ret = FFA_RET_ABORTED;                                                                                                                                                                         
		goto out_unlock;                                                                                                                                                                               
	}

	ffa_mem_reclaim(res, handle_lo, handle_hi, flags);                                                                                                                                                    
	if (res->a0 != FFA_SUCCESS)                                                                                                                                                                           
		goto out_unlock; 
```                                                                                                                                                                                                      

>  	/* If the SPMD was happy, then we should be too. */
>  	WARN_ON(ffa_host_unshare_ranges(reg->constituents,
>  					reg->addr_range_cnt));
> -- 
> 2.54.0.746.g67dd491aae-goog
>

Sebastian 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sebastian Ene <sebastianene@google.com>
To: Mostafa Saleh <smostafa@google.com>
Cc: op-tee@lists.trustedfirmware.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	maz@kernel.org, oupton@kernel.org, joey.gouly@arm.com,
	suzuki.poulose@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
	jens.wiklander@linaro.org, sumit.garg@kernel.org,
	vdonnefort@google.com, sudeep.holla@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/6] KVM: arm64: Fix bounds checking in do_ffa_mem_reclaim()
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 14:22:25 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aiwWIRS-l-SS-wcK@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260527150236.1978655-5-smostafa@google.com>

On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 03:02:34PM +0000, Mostafa Saleh wrote:
> Sashiko (locally) reports out of bound write possiblity if SPMD
> returns an invalid data.
> 
> While SPMD is considered trusted, pKVM does some basic checks,
> for offset to be less than or equal len.
> 
> However, that is incorrect as even if the offset is smaller than
> len pKVM can still access out of bound memory in the next
> ffa_host_unshare_ranges().
> 
> Split this check into 2:
> 1- Check that the fixed portion of the descriptor fits.
> 2- After getting reg, check the variable array size addr_range_cnt
>    fits.
> 
> Also, drop the WARN_ONs as that will panic the kernel and in the
> next checks there are no WARNs, so that makes it consistent.
> 
> Fixes: 0a9f15fd5674 ("KVM: arm64: pkvm: Add support for fragmented FF-A descriptors")
> Signed-off-by: Mostafa Saleh <smostafa@google.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c | 9 +++++++--
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c
> index 1af722771178..b6cf9ad82e12 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c
> @@ -607,8 +607,8 @@ static void do_ffa_mem_reclaim(struct arm_smccc_1_2_regs *res,
>  	 * check that we end up with something that doesn't look _completely_
>  	 * bogus.
>  	 */
> -	if (WARN_ON(offset > len ||
> -		    fraglen > KVM_FFA_MBOX_NR_PAGES * PAGE_SIZE)) {
> +	if (offset + CONSTITUENTS_OFFSET(0) > len ||
> +	    fraglen > KVM_FFA_MBOX_NR_PAGES * PAGE_SIZE) {
>  		ret = FFA_RET_ABORTED;
>  		ffa_rx_release(res);
>  		goto out_unlock;
> @@ -641,6 +641,11 @@ static void do_ffa_mem_reclaim(struct arm_smccc_1_2_regs *res,
>  		goto out_unlock;
>  
>  	reg = (void *)buf + offset;
> +	if (offset + CONSTITUENTS_OFFSET(reg->addr_range_cnt) > len) {
> +		ret = FFA_RET_ABORTED;
> +		goto out_unlock;
> +	}
> +

I wonder if we should do this check first and then mem_reclaim, the rational being that if the check fails
the page will be lost forever.

```
	reg = (void *)buf + offset;                                                                                                                                                                            
	if (offset + CONSTITUENTS_OFFSET(reg->addr_range_cnt) > len) {                                                                                                                                         
		ret = FFA_RET_ABORTED;                                                                                                                                                                         
		goto out_unlock;                                                                                                                                                                               
	}

	ffa_mem_reclaim(res, handle_lo, handle_hi, flags);                                                                                                                                                    
	if (res->a0 != FFA_SUCCESS)                                                                                                                                                                           
		goto out_unlock; 
```                                                                                                                                                                                                      

>  	/* If the SPMD was happy, then we should be too. */
>  	WARN_ON(ffa_host_unshare_ranges(reg->constituents,
>  					reg->addr_range_cnt));
> -- 
> 2.54.0.746.g67dd491aae-goog
>

Sebastian 


  reply	other threads:[~2026-06-12 14:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-05-27 15:02 [PATCH v6 0/6] arm_ffa, KVM: Fix FF-A emad offset calculations Mostafa Saleh
2026-05-27 15:02 ` Mostafa Saleh via OP-TEE
2026-05-27 15:02 ` [PATCH v6 1/6] optee: ffa: Add NULL check in optee_ffa_lend_protmem Mostafa Saleh
2026-05-27 15:02   ` Mostafa Saleh via OP-TEE
2026-05-27 18:55   ` Sumit Garg
2026-05-27 18:55     ` Sumit Garg via OP-TEE
2026-05-27 15:02 ` [PATCH v6 2/6] firmware: arm_ffa: Fix out-of-bound writes in ffa_setup_and_transmit() Mostafa Saleh
2026-05-27 15:02   ` Mostafa Saleh via OP-TEE
2026-05-27 15:02 ` [PATCH v6 3/6] firmware: arm_ffa: Fix Endpoint Memory Access Descriptor offset calculation Mostafa Saleh
2026-05-27 15:02   ` Mostafa Saleh via OP-TEE
2026-06-12 13:48   ` Sebastian Ene
2026-06-12 13:48     ` Sebastian Ene via OP-TEE
2026-05-27 15:02 ` [PATCH v6 4/6] KVM: arm64: Fix bounds checking in do_ffa_mem_reclaim() Mostafa Saleh
2026-05-27 15:02   ` Mostafa Saleh via OP-TEE
2026-06-12 14:22   ` Sebastian Ene via OP-TEE [this message]
2026-06-12 14:22     ` Sebastian Ene
2026-05-27 15:02 ` [PATCH v6 5/6] KVM: arm64: Validate the offset to the mem access descriptor Mostafa Saleh
2026-05-27 15:02   ` Mostafa Saleh via OP-TEE
2026-06-12 15:20   ` Sebastian Ene
2026-06-12 15:20     ` Sebastian Ene via OP-TEE
2026-05-27 15:02 ` [PATCH v6 6/6] KVM: arm64: Ensure FFA ranges are page aligned Mostafa Saleh
2026-05-27 15:02   ` Mostafa Saleh via OP-TEE
2026-06-12 16:07   ` Sebastian Ene via OP-TEE
2026-06-12 16:07     ` Sebastian Ene

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=aiwWIRS-l-SS-wcK@google.com \
    --to=op-tee@lists.trustedfirmware.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=joey.gouly@arm.com \
    --cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=maz@kernel.org \
    --cc=oupton@kernel.org \
    --cc=sebastianene@google.com \
    --cc=smostafa@google.com \
    --cc=sudeep.holla@kernel.org \
    --cc=sumit.garg@kernel.org \
    --cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
    --cc=vdonnefort@google.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.