Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Zero reserved synic flags when delivering message to avoid stack leak

[Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2026, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> writes:
> 
> > Ensure all reserved flags are zeroed when setting the msg_pending flag as
> > part of SynIC message delivery, as setting only msg_pending can leak seven
> > bits of kernel stack data to the guest.  E.g. gcc typically uses a
> > bitwise-OR to set the msg_pending flag, without initializing the on-stack
> > variable.
> >
> > Precisely zero the flags, e.g. as opposed to zeroing the entire structure,
> > to make it somewhat more obvious that the flags *need* to be zeroed.  E.g.
> > it would be quite easy to misread the initial read of guest memory and
> > think that zeroing the entire structure is completely superfluous.
> >
> > Fixes: 3a0e7731724f ("x86: kvm: hyperv: simplify SynIC message delivery")
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > Reported-by: Stefan Teodorescu <fane@google.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c | 2 ++
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> > index 604651cb2739..8d2669d8ef34 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> > @@ -802,7 +802,9 @@ static int synic_deliver_msg(struct kvm_vcpu_hv_synic *synic, u32 sint,
> >  		if (no_retry)
> >  			return 0;
> >  
> > +		hv_hdr.message_flags.asu8 = 0;
> >  		hv_hdr.message_flags.msg_pending = 1;
> > +
> >  		r = kvm_vcpu_write_guest_page(vcpu, msg_page_gfn,
> >  					      &hv_hdr.message_flags,
> >  					      msg_off +
> >
> > base-commit: 76671054f9a1ff6abb976583cd8da37650acdc97
> 
> Reviewed-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
> 
> (although, I kind of like the idea of zeroing the whole structure with a
> comment that we don't read it as a whole from guest's memory too)

FWIW, I actually wrote the code that way the first time, and even with the
comment I was still scratching my head a bit.  I think because it's not at all
obvious that msg_pending is a bit in a bitfield, not a standalone boolean?