From: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@arm.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Always check the state from hyp_ack_unshare()
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2024 13:10:41 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z0m9UXJYcjzf-pgX@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241129095812.GA4298@willie-the-truck>
On Friday 29 Nov 2024 at 09:58:13 (+0000), Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 03:44:06PM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > There are multiple pKVM memory transitions where the state of a page is
> > not cross-checked from the completer's PoV for performance reasons.
> > For example, if a page is PKVM_PAGE_OWNED from the initiator's PoV,
> > we should be guaranteed by construction that it is PKVM_NOPAGE for
> > everybody else, hence allowing us to save a page-table lookup.
> >
> > When it was introduced, hyp_ack_unshare() followed that logic and bailed
> > out without checking the PKVM_PAGE_SHARED_BORROWED state in the
> > hypervisor's stage-1. This was correct as we could safely assume that
> > all host-initiated shares were directed at the hypervisor at the time.
> > But with the introduction of other types of shares (e.g. for FF-A or
> > non-protected guests), it is now very much required to cross check this
> > state to prevent the host from running __pkvm_host_unshare_hyp() on a
> > page shared with TZ or a non-protected guest.
> >
> > Thankfully, if an attacker were to try this, the hyp_unmap() call from
> > hyp_complete_unshare() would fail, hence causing to WARN() from
> > __do_unshare() with the host lock held, which is fatal. But this is
> > fragile at best, and can hardly be considered a security measure.
> >
> > Let's just do the right thing and always check the state from
> > hyp_ack_unshare().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c | 3 ---
> > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> > index caba3e4bd09e..e75374d682f4 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> > @@ -783,9 +783,6 @@ static int hyp_ack_unshare(u64 addr, const struct pkvm_mem_transition *tx)
> > if (tx->initiator.id == PKVM_ID_HOST && hyp_page_count((void *)addr))
> > return -EBUSY;
> >
> > - if (__hyp_ack_skip_pgtable_check(tx))
> > - return 0;
> > -
>
> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cheers.
> I suppose __hyp_ack_skip_pgtable_check() is now quite poorly named,
> since we only want to use it in cases where the page is PKVM_PAGE_OWNED
> by the initiator.
I don't mind the name personally, but happy to respin if someone can
come up with a better one :-).
> Hopefully nobody smart tries to add it back here!
Right, so here's a patch adding a selftest for this stuff:
https://lore.kernel.org/kvmarm/20241129125800.992468-1-qperret@google.com/
That should help catch future regressions in that area.
FTR, I've started hating on the skip_pgtable_check() logic altogether as
enabling CONFIG_EL2_NVHE_DEBUG happens to 'solve' the problem -- it's not
exactly intuitive that enabling debug options improves security. The
np-guest series moves the host state to the hyp vmemmap, so we can
probably nuke __host_ack_skip_pgtable_check() with that as the check
becomes really cheap. And we could surely do the same thing for the hyp
state, and just always do the cross-check. I'll give it a spin.
Thanks,
Quentin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-11-29 13:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-11-28 15:44 [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Always check the state from hyp_ack_unshare() Quentin Perret
2024-11-29 9:58 ` Will Deacon
2024-11-29 13:10 ` Quentin Perret [this message]
2024-12-05 10:02 ` Quentin Perret
2024-12-18 21:30 ` Oliver Upton
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=Z0m9UXJYcjzf-pgX@google.com \
--to=qperret@google.com \
--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=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=yuzenghui@huawei.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox