[PATCH v5 1/3] kvm: vmx: fix limit checking in get_vmx_mem_address()

[PATCH v5 1/3] kvm: vmx: fix limit checking in get_vmx_mem_address()

[Eugene Korenevsky]

Intel SDM vol. 3, 5.3:
The processor causes a
general-protection exception (or, if the segment is SS, a stack-fault
exception) any time an attempt is made to access the following addresses
in a segment:
- A byte at an offset greater than the effective limit
- A word at an offset greater than the (effective-limit – 1)
- A doubleword at an offset greater than the (effective-limit – 3)
- A quadword at an offset greater than the (effective-limit – 7)

Therefore, the generic limit checking error condition must be

exn = (off > limit + 1 - access_len) = (off + access_len - 1 > limit)

but not

exn = (off + access_len > limit)

as for now.

Also avoid integer overflow of `off` at 32-bit KVM by casting it to u64.

Note: access length is currently sizeof(u64) which is incorrect. This
will be fixed in the subsequent patch.

Signed-off-by: Eugene Korenevsky <ekorenevsky@gmail.com>
---
Changes in v3 since v2: fixed limit checking condition to avoid underflow;
added note
Changes in v4 since v3: fixed `off` overflow at 32-bit by casting to u64

 arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
index f1a69117ac0f..1a51bff129a8 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
@@ -4115,7 +4115,7 @@ int get_vmx_mem_address(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long exit_qualification,
 		 */
 		if (!(s.base == 0 && s.limit == 0xffffffff &&
 		     ((s.type & 8) || !(s.type & 4))))
-			exn = exn || (off + sizeof(u64) > s.limit);
+			exn = exn || ((u64)off + sizeof(u64) - 1 > s.limit);
 	}
 	if (exn) {
 		kvm_queue_exception_e(vcpu,
-- 
2.21.0

Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] kvm: vmx: fix limit checking in get_vmx_mem_address()

[Sean Christopherson]

On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 09:02:48AM +0300, Eugene Korenevsky wrote:
> Intel SDM vol. 3, 5.3:
> The processor causes a
> general-protection exception (or, if the segment is SS, a stack-fault
> exception) any time an attempt is made to access the following addresses
> in a segment:
> - A byte at an offset greater than the effective limit
> - A word at an offset greater than the (effective-limit – 1)
> - A doubleword at an offset greater than the (effective-limit – 3)
> - A quadword at an offset greater than the (effective-limit – 7)
> 
> Therefore, the generic limit checking error condition must be
> 
> exn = (off > limit + 1 - access_len) = (off + access_len - 1 > limit)
> 
> but not
> 
> exn = (off + access_len > limit)
> 
> as for now.
> 
> Also avoid integer overflow of `off` at 32-bit KVM by casting it to u64.
> 
> Note: access length is currently sizeof(u64) which is incorrect. This
> will be fixed in the subsequent patch.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Eugene Korenevsky <ekorenevsky@gmail.com>

When sending a new revision of a patch, please add any supplied tags to
the changelog, e.g. Reviewed-by, Tested-by, Acked-by, etc...  For example,
my Reviewed-by for v4 of this patch.

The one situation where you don't want to carry tags is if you make
non-trivial changes to a patch, e.g. person X reviews a patch but then
it gets reworked based on feedback from person Y, in which case the
Reviewed-by from X should be dropped as they haven't reviewed the new
code.

Thans for the patches!

Reviewed-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>