[PATCH] KVM: arm/arm64: check IRQ number on userland injection

[marc.zyngier@arm.com (Marc Zyngier)]

On 13/04/15 11:04, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 05:52:05PM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote:
>> Hi Christopher,
>>
>> On 10/04/15 16:29, Christopher Covington wrote:
>>> Hi Andre,
>>>
>>> On 04/10/2015 11:17 AM, Andre Przywara wrote:
>>>> When userland injects a SPI via the KVM_IRQ_LINE ioctl we currently
>>>> only check it against a fixed limit, which historically is set
>>>> to 127. With the new dynamic IRQ allocation the effective limit may
>>>> actually be smaller (64).
>>>> So when now a malicious or buggy userland injects a SPI in that
>>>> range, we spill over on our VGIC bitmaps and bytemaps memory.
>>>> I could trigger a host kernel NULL pointer dereference with current
>>>> mainline by injecting some bogus IRQ number from a hacked kvmtool:
>>>
>>>> --- a/arch/arm/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
>>>> @@ -195,7 +195,11 @@ struct kvm_arch_memory_slot {
>>>>  #define KVM_ARM_IRQ_CPU_IRQ		0
>>>>  #define KVM_ARM_IRQ_CPU_FIQ		1
>>>>  
>>>> -/* Highest supported SPI, from VGIC_NR_IRQS */
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * This used to hold the highest supported SPI, but it is now obsolete
>>>> + * and only here to provide source code level compatibility with older
>>>> + * userland. The highest SPI number can be set via KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_NR_IRQS.
>>>> + */
>>>>  #define KVM_ARM_IRQ_GIC_MAX		127
>>>
>>> If that's the case should it maybe only defined when __KERNEL__ is not defined?
>>
>> Mmmh, I am not sure it's really worth the hassle. Actually it seems like
>> that neither kvmtool nor QEMU use this definition, so it's more or less
>> orphaned by now. I am confident we can avoid it sneaking in in the
>> kernel again.
>>
> TBH, I wouldn't object against Marc enclosing the definition in an
> #ifdef __KERNEL__.

Yeah, I'll fix that up (assuming you mean #ifndef rather than #ifdef).

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...