Re: [PATCH] KVM: s390: Do not leak kernel stack data in the KVM_S390_INTERRUPT ioctl

Thomas Huth
2019-09-12T11:23:45Z

On 12/09/2019 12.52, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
>
> On 12.09.19 11:20, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 12/09/2019 11.14, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 12.09.19 11:00, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>>> When the userspace program runs the KVM_S390_INTERRUPT ioctl to inject
>>>> an interrupt, we convert them from the legacy struct kvm_s390_interrupt
>>>> to the new struct kvm_s390_irq via the s390int_to_s390irq() function.
>>>> However, this function does not take care of all types of interrupts
>>>> that we can inject into the guest later (see do_inject_vcpu()). Since we
>>>> do not clear out the s390irq values before calling s390int_to_s390irq(),
>>>> there is a chance that we copy unwanted data from the kernel stack
>>>> into the guest memory later if the interrupt data has not been properly
>>>> initialized by s390int_to_s390irq().
>>>>
>>>> Specifically, the problem exists with the KVM_S390_INT_PFAULT_INIT
>>>> interrupt: s390int_to_s390irq() does not handle it, but the function
>>>> __deliver_pfault_init() will later copy the uninitialized stack data
>>>> from the ext.ext_params2 into the guest memory.
>>>>
>>>> Fix it by handling that interrupt type in s390int_to_s390irq(), too.
>>>> And while we're at it, make sure that s390int_to_s390irq() now
>>>> directly returns -EINVAL for unknown interrupt types, so that we
>>>> do not run into this problem again in case we add more interrupt
>>>> types to do_inject_vcpu() sometime in the future.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c | 10 ++++++++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c b/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
>>>> index 3e7efdd9228a..165dea4c7f19 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
>>>> @@ -1960,6 +1960,16 @@ int s390int_to_s390irq(struct kvm_s390_interrupt *s390int,
>>>> case KVM_S390_MCHK:
>>>> irq->u.mchk.mcic = s390int->parm64;
>>>> break;
>>>> + case KVM_S390_INT_PFAULT_INIT:
>>>> + irq->u.ext.ext_params = s390int->parm;
>>>> + irq->u.ext.ext_params2 = s390int->parm64;
>>>> + break;
>>>> + case KVM_S390_RESTART:
>>>> + case KVM_S390_INT_CLOCK_COMP:
>>>> + case KVM_S390_INT_CPU_TIMER:
>>>> + break;
>>>> + default:
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> }
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wouldn't a safe fix be to initialize the struct to zero in the caller?
>>
>> That's of course possible, too. But that means that we always have to
>> zero out the whole structure, so that's a little bit more of overhead
>> (well, it likely doesn't matter for such a legacy ioctl).
>
> Yes doing something like
>
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> index c19a24e940a1..b1f6f434af5d 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> @@ -4332,7 +4332,7 @@ long kvm_arch_vcpu_async_ioctl(struct file *filp,
> }
> case KVM_S390_INTERRUPT: {
> struct kvm_s390_interrupt s390int;
> - struct kvm_s390_irq s390irq;
> + struct kvm_s390_irq s390irq = {};
>
> if (copy_from_user(&s390int, argp, sizeof(s390int)))
> return -EFAULT;
>
> would certainly be ok as well, but

I don't think that it's urgently necessary, but ok, if you all prefer to
have it, too, I can add it to my patch.

>> But the more important question: Do we then still care of fixing the
>> PFAULT_INIT interrupt here? Since it requires a parameter, the "case
>> KVM_S390_INT_PFAULT_INIT:" part would be required here anyway.
>
> as long as we we this interface we should fix it and we should do the
> pfault thing correctly.
> Maybe we should start to deprecate this interface and remove it.

Hmm, we already talked about deprecating support for pre-3.15 kernel
stuff in the past (see
https://wiki.qemu.org/ChangeLog/2.12#Future_incompatible_changes for
example), since this has been broken in QEMU since quite a while, but
the new KVM_S390_IRQ replacement has just been introduced with kernel
4.1 ... so removing this KVM_S390_INTERRUPT ioctl any time soon sounds
wrong to me, we might break some userspace programs that are still there
in the wild...

Thomas