From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Amit Machhiwal" <amachhiw@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/4] KVM: PPC: Document KVM_PPC_GET_COMPAT_CAPS ioctl
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2026 18:27:18 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260804182718.DB3B01F00A3A@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260804180705.59160-5-amachhiw@linux.ibm.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [High] Unconditional rejection of larger structs breaks the forward compatibility mechanism of copy_struct_from_user().
- [High] Overwriting the userspace size field with the kernel's struct size creates dangerous ambiguities on success.
--
--- Patch [4]: [PATCH v6 4/4] KVM: PPC: Document KVM_PPC_GET_COMPAT_CAPS ioctl ---
commit 5d4e2edcf1688edc6d21e5f2463ef8b58bd3d0a7
Author: Amit Machhiwal <amachhiw@linux.ibm.com>
KVM: PPC: Document KVM_PPC_GET_COMPAT_CAPS ioctl
Add documentation for the KVM_PPC_GET_COMPAT_CAPS ioctl to the KVM API
documentation. The documentation covers error code descriptions including
E2BIG for forward compatibility and the extensible size-based versioning
contract.
> diff --git a/Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst b/Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst
> index e3003a241d5b0..22fedb0aa34b4 100644
> --- a/Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst
> @@ -6566,6 +6566,85 @@ KVM_S390_KEYOP_SSKE
> Sets the storage key for the guest address ``guest_addr`` to the key
> specified in ``key``, returning the previous value in ``key``.
>
> +4.145 KVM_PPC_GET_COMPAT_CAPS
> +-----------------------------
> +:Capability: KVM_CAP_PPC_COMPAT_CAPS
> +:Architectures: powerpc
> +:Type: vm ioctl
> +:Parameters: struct kvm_ppc_compat_caps (in/out)
> +:Returns: 0 on success, negative value on failure
> +
> +Errors include:
> +
> + ======== ============================================================
> + EFAULT if ``struct kvm_ppc_compat_caps`` cannot be read from or
> + written to userspace
> + EINVAL if the ``size`` field is smaller than
> + ``KVM_PPC_COMPAT_CAPS_SIZE_VER0``, if the ``flags`` field
> + is non-zero, or if the backend fails to retrieve or map
> + CPU compatibility capabilities
> + E2BIG if ``size`` is larger than the kernel's struct size
> + (new userspace on old kernel); the kernel writes back its
> + own struct size into the ``size`` field so userspace can
> + retry with the correct size
[Severity: High]
Does explicitly rejecting a larger struct size with -E2BIG break the standard
forward compatibility mechanism of copy_struct_from_user()?
Extensible struct UAPIs are designed to allow newer userspace to run seamlessly
on older kernels as long as new fields are zeroed.
Looking at arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c in kvm_arch_vm_ioctl(), the code
short-circuits the native trailing-zero check in copy_struct_from_user():
if (usize > sizeof(host_caps)) {
host_caps.size = sizeof(host_caps);
r = -EFAULT;
if (put_user(host_caps.size, (__u64 __user *)argp))
goto out;
r = -E2BIG;
goto out;
}
This forces userspace to implement fallback retry loops instead of relying on
the kernel's native UAPI extensibility.
[ ... ]
> +Before calling this ioctl, userspace must set the ``size`` field to
> +``sizeof(struct kvm_ppc_compat_caps)`` and zero the ``flags`` field.
> +The kernel rejects non-zero ``flags`` with ``-EINVAL`` to prevent
> +uninitialized stack values from being silently accepted, keeping the
> +field available for future use without ABI ambiguity.
> +
> +The ioctl uses ``copy_struct_from_user()`` and ``copy_struct_to_user()``
> +to support extensible versioning: if userspace passes a struct smaller
> +than the current kernel version (``size >= KVM_PPC_COMPAT_CAPS_SIZE_VER0``),
> +the kernel zero-pads unknown trailing fields. If userspace passes a larger
> +struct (``size > sizeof(struct kvm_ppc_compat_caps)``), the kernel writes
> +back its own struct size into the ``size`` field and returns ``-E2BIG``,
> +allowing userspace to discover the kernel's struct size and retry.
[Severity: High]
Can overwriting the userspace size field with the kernel's struct size create
dangerous ambiguities on success?
If userspace passes a smaller struct (e.g., 24 bytes) and the kernel uses a
larger struct (e.g., 32 bytes), the kernel updates host_caps.size to 32 and
copies 24 bytes back to userspace.
Looking at arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c in kvm_arch_vm_ioctl():
host_caps.size = sizeof(host_caps);
r = copy_struct_to_user(argp, usize, &host_caps,
sizeof(host_caps), NULL);
Userspace would receive a success code (0) but its size field is now 32. This
falsely indicates to userspace that the kernel provided 32 bytes of valid data,
which can lead to out-of-bounds reads if userspace trusts the returned size
field to determine valid data bounds within its buffer.
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260804180705.59160-1-amachhiw@linux.ibm.com?part=4
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-04 18:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-04 18:07 [PATCH v6 0/4] KVM: PPC: Expose CPU compatibility modes for nested guests Amit Machhiwal
2026-08-04 18:07 ` [PATCH v6 1/4] KVM: PPC: Introduce KVM_CAP_PPC_COMPAT_CAPS and wire up ioctl Amit Machhiwal
2026-08-04 18:19 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-06 16:07 ` Amit Machhiwal
2026-08-04 18:07 ` [PATCH v6 2/4] KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Implement compat CPU capability retrieval for KVM on PowerVM Amit Machhiwal
2026-08-04 18:21 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-06 16:09 ` Amit Machhiwal
2026-08-04 18:07 ` [PATCH v6 3/4] KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Add support for compat CPU capabilities for KVM on PowerNV Amit Machhiwal
2026-08-04 18:27 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-06 16:13 ` Amit Machhiwal
2026-08-04 18:07 ` [PATCH v6 4/4] KVM: PPC: Document KVM_PPC_GET_COMPAT_CAPS ioctl Amit Machhiwal
2026-08-04 18:27 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-08-06 16:15 ` Amit Machhiwal
2026-08-05 4:32 ` [PATCH v6 0/4] KVM: PPC: Expose CPU compatibility modes for nested guests Anushree Mathur
2026-08-05 18:39 ` Ritesh Harjani
2026-08-06 5:33 ` Amit Machhiwal
2026-08-06 13:05 ` Ritesh Harjani
2026-08-06 14:58 ` Amit Machhiwal
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=20260804182718.DB3B01F00A3A@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=amachhiw@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox