All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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 5/6] KVM: arm64: Validate the offset to the mem access descriptor
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 15:20:30 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aiwjvihrwbInBqGn@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260527150236.1978655-6-smostafa@google.com>

On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 03:02:35PM +0000, Mostafa Saleh wrote:
> From: Sebastian Ene <sebastianene@google.com>
> 
> Prevent the pKVM hypervisor from making assumptions that the
> endpoint memory access descriptor (EMAD) comes right after the
> FF-A memory region header.
> Prior to FF-A version 1.1 the header of the memory region
> didn't contain an offset to the endpoint memory access descriptor.
> The layout of a memory transaction looks like this from 1.1 onward:
> Type | Field name | Offset
> [ Header | ffa_mem_region  | 0
>   EMAD 1 | ffa_mem_region_attributes) | ffa_mem_region.ep_mem_offset
> ]
> Verify that the offset to the first endpoint memory access descriptor
> is within the mailbox buffer bounds.
> 
> Also, fix one hardcoded sizeof(struct ffa_mem_region_attributes) that
> should be replaced ffa_emad_size_get() for compatibility with FFA v1.0.
> 
> [@Mostafa, Add missing call to ffa_rx_release() and use fraglen
>  as the max buffer size as it is the only intialised part]
> 
> Fixes: 42fb33dde42b ("KVM: arm64: Use FF-A 1.1 with pKVM")
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Ene <sebastianene@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mostafa Saleh <smostafa@google.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c
> index b6cf9ad82e12..a12e01883314 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c
> @@ -476,10 +476,10 @@ static void __do_ffa_mem_xfer(const u64 func_id,
>  	DECLARE_REG(u32, fraglen, ctxt, 2);
>  	DECLARE_REG(u64, addr_mbz, ctxt, 3);
>  	DECLARE_REG(u32, npages_mbz, ctxt, 4);
> +	u32 offset, nr_ranges, checked_offset, em_mem_access_off;
>  	struct ffa_mem_region_attributes *ep_mem_access;
>  	struct ffa_composite_mem_region *reg;
>  	struct ffa_mem_region *buf;
> -	u32 offset, nr_ranges, checked_offset;
>  	int ret = 0;
>  
>  	if (addr_mbz || npages_mbz || fraglen > len ||
> @@ -489,7 +489,7 @@ static void __do_ffa_mem_xfer(const u64 func_id,
>  	}
>  

Hi Mostafa,

>  	if (fraglen < sizeof(struct ffa_mem_region) +
> -		      sizeof(struct ffa_mem_region_attributes)) {
> +		      ffa_emad_size_get(hyp_ffa_version)) {
>  		ret = FFA_RET_INVALID_PARAMETERS;
>  		goto out;
>  	}

Here sashiko complains about a compatibility break with v1.0 even though
it is not from this change. This is because the size of sizeof(struct
ffa_mem_region) was 36 bytes in v1.0 and now it is 48.

This check can cause "perfectly valid v1.0 memory transfers to be rejected"
(from sashiko).

Other than that this looks good. I will spin a new version of this
series.

> @@ -508,8 +508,13 @@ static void __do_ffa_mem_xfer(const u64 func_id,
>  	buf = hyp_buffers.tx;
>  	memcpy(buf, host_buffers.tx, fraglen);
>  
> -	ep_mem_access = (void *)buf +
> -			ffa_mem_desc_offset(buf, 0, hyp_ffa_version);
> +	em_mem_access_off = ffa_mem_desc_offset(buf, 0, hyp_ffa_version);
> +	if ((u64)em_mem_access_off + ffa_emad_size_get(hyp_ffa_version) > fraglen) {
> +		ret = FFA_RET_INVALID_PARAMETERS;
> +		goto out_unlock;
> +	}
> +
> +	ep_mem_access = (void *)buf + em_mem_access_off;
>  	offset = ep_mem_access->composite_off;
>  	if (!offset || buf->ep_count != 1 || buf->sender_id != HOST_FFA_ID) {
>  		ret = FFA_RET_INVALID_PARAMETERS;
> @@ -574,9 +579,9 @@ static void do_ffa_mem_reclaim(struct arm_smccc_1_2_regs *res,
>  	DECLARE_REG(u32, handle_lo, ctxt, 1);
>  	DECLARE_REG(u32, handle_hi, ctxt, 2);
>  	DECLARE_REG(u32, flags, ctxt, 3);
> +	u32 offset, len, fraglen, fragoff, em_mem_access_off;
>  	struct ffa_mem_region_attributes *ep_mem_access;
>  	struct ffa_composite_mem_region *reg;
> -	u32 offset, len, fraglen, fragoff;
>  	struct ffa_mem_region *buf;
>  	int ret = 0;
>  	u64 handle;
> @@ -599,8 +604,14 @@ static void do_ffa_mem_reclaim(struct arm_smccc_1_2_regs *res,
>  	len = res->a1;
>  	fraglen = res->a2;
>  
> -	ep_mem_access = (void *)buf +
> -			ffa_mem_desc_offset(buf, 0, hyp_ffa_version);
> +	em_mem_access_off = ffa_mem_desc_offset(buf, 0, hyp_ffa_version);
> +	if ((u64)em_mem_access_off + ffa_emad_size_get(hyp_ffa_version) > fraglen) {
> +		ret = FFA_RET_INVALID_PARAMETERS;
> +		ffa_rx_release(res);
> +		goto out_unlock;
> +	}
> +
> +	ep_mem_access = (void *)buf + em_mem_access_off;
>  	offset = ep_mem_access->composite_off;
>  	/*
>  	 * We can trust the SPMD to get this right, but let's at least
> -- 
> 2.54.0.746.g67dd491aae-goog
>

Thanks,
Sebastian

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
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 5/6] KVM: arm64: Validate the offset to the mem access descriptor
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 15:20:30 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aiwjvihrwbInBqGn@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260527150236.1978655-6-smostafa@google.com>

On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 03:02:35PM +0000, Mostafa Saleh wrote:
> From: Sebastian Ene <sebastianene@google.com>
> 
> Prevent the pKVM hypervisor from making assumptions that the
> endpoint memory access descriptor (EMAD) comes right after the
> FF-A memory region header.
> Prior to FF-A version 1.1 the header of the memory region
> didn't contain an offset to the endpoint memory access descriptor.
> The layout of a memory transaction looks like this from 1.1 onward:
> Type | Field name | Offset
> [ Header | ffa_mem_region  | 0
>   EMAD 1 | ffa_mem_region_attributes) | ffa_mem_region.ep_mem_offset
> ]
> Verify that the offset to the first endpoint memory access descriptor
> is within the mailbox buffer bounds.
> 
> Also, fix one hardcoded sizeof(struct ffa_mem_region_attributes) that
> should be replaced ffa_emad_size_get() for compatibility with FFA v1.0.
> 
> [@Mostafa, Add missing call to ffa_rx_release() and use fraglen
>  as the max buffer size as it is the only intialised part]
> 
> Fixes: 42fb33dde42b ("KVM: arm64: Use FF-A 1.1 with pKVM")
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Ene <sebastianene@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mostafa Saleh <smostafa@google.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c
> index b6cf9ad82e12..a12e01883314 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c
> @@ -476,10 +476,10 @@ static void __do_ffa_mem_xfer(const u64 func_id,
>  	DECLARE_REG(u32, fraglen, ctxt, 2);
>  	DECLARE_REG(u64, addr_mbz, ctxt, 3);
>  	DECLARE_REG(u32, npages_mbz, ctxt, 4);
> +	u32 offset, nr_ranges, checked_offset, em_mem_access_off;
>  	struct ffa_mem_region_attributes *ep_mem_access;
>  	struct ffa_composite_mem_region *reg;
>  	struct ffa_mem_region *buf;
> -	u32 offset, nr_ranges, checked_offset;
>  	int ret = 0;
>  
>  	if (addr_mbz || npages_mbz || fraglen > len ||
> @@ -489,7 +489,7 @@ static void __do_ffa_mem_xfer(const u64 func_id,
>  	}
>  

Hi Mostafa,

>  	if (fraglen < sizeof(struct ffa_mem_region) +
> -		      sizeof(struct ffa_mem_region_attributes)) {
> +		      ffa_emad_size_get(hyp_ffa_version)) {
>  		ret = FFA_RET_INVALID_PARAMETERS;
>  		goto out;
>  	}

Here sashiko complains about a compatibility break with v1.0 even though
it is not from this change. This is because the size of sizeof(struct
ffa_mem_region) was 36 bytes in v1.0 and now it is 48.

This check can cause "perfectly valid v1.0 memory transfers to be rejected"
(from sashiko).

Other than that this looks good. I will spin a new version of this
series.

> @@ -508,8 +508,13 @@ static void __do_ffa_mem_xfer(const u64 func_id,
>  	buf = hyp_buffers.tx;
>  	memcpy(buf, host_buffers.tx, fraglen);
>  
> -	ep_mem_access = (void *)buf +
> -			ffa_mem_desc_offset(buf, 0, hyp_ffa_version);
> +	em_mem_access_off = ffa_mem_desc_offset(buf, 0, hyp_ffa_version);
> +	if ((u64)em_mem_access_off + ffa_emad_size_get(hyp_ffa_version) > fraglen) {
> +		ret = FFA_RET_INVALID_PARAMETERS;
> +		goto out_unlock;
> +	}
> +
> +	ep_mem_access = (void *)buf + em_mem_access_off;
>  	offset = ep_mem_access->composite_off;
>  	if (!offset || buf->ep_count != 1 || buf->sender_id != HOST_FFA_ID) {
>  		ret = FFA_RET_INVALID_PARAMETERS;
> @@ -574,9 +579,9 @@ static void do_ffa_mem_reclaim(struct arm_smccc_1_2_regs *res,
>  	DECLARE_REG(u32, handle_lo, ctxt, 1);
>  	DECLARE_REG(u32, handle_hi, ctxt, 2);
>  	DECLARE_REG(u32, flags, ctxt, 3);
> +	u32 offset, len, fraglen, fragoff, em_mem_access_off;
>  	struct ffa_mem_region_attributes *ep_mem_access;
>  	struct ffa_composite_mem_region *reg;
> -	u32 offset, len, fraglen, fragoff;
>  	struct ffa_mem_region *buf;
>  	int ret = 0;
>  	u64 handle;
> @@ -599,8 +604,14 @@ static void do_ffa_mem_reclaim(struct arm_smccc_1_2_regs *res,
>  	len = res->a1;
>  	fraglen = res->a2;
>  
> -	ep_mem_access = (void *)buf +
> -			ffa_mem_desc_offset(buf, 0, hyp_ffa_version);
> +	em_mem_access_off = ffa_mem_desc_offset(buf, 0, hyp_ffa_version);
> +	if ((u64)em_mem_access_off + ffa_emad_size_get(hyp_ffa_version) > fraglen) {
> +		ret = FFA_RET_INVALID_PARAMETERS;
> +		ffa_rx_release(res);
> +		goto out_unlock;
> +	}
> +
> +	ep_mem_access = (void *)buf + em_mem_access_off;
>  	offset = ep_mem_access->composite_off;
>  	/*
>  	 * We can trust the SPMD to get this right, but let's at least
> -- 
> 2.54.0.746.g67dd491aae-goog
>

Thanks,
Sebastian

  reply	other threads:[~2026-06-12 15:20 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
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 [this message]
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=aiwjvihrwbInBqGn@google.com \
    --to=sebastianene@google.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=jens.wiklander@linaro.org \
    --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=op-tee@lists.trustedfirmware.org \
    --cc=oupton@kernel.org \
    --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.