From: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.ibm.com>
To: Greg Kurz <groug@kaod.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org,
Bharata B Rao <bharata@linux.ibm.com>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: check caller of H_SVM_* Hcalls
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 15:43:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2268d1e3-3020-91c4-90e2-d2eced6a214a@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200320132248.44b81b3b@bahia.lan>
Le 20/03/2020 à 13:22, Greg Kurz a écrit :
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 11:26:42 +0100
> Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> The Hcall named H_SVM_* are reserved to the Ultravisor. However, nothing
>> prevent a malicious VM or SVM to call them. This could lead to weird result
>> and should be filtered out.
>>
>> Checking the Secure bit of the calling MSR ensure that the call is coming
>> from either the Ultravisor or a SVM. But any system call made from a SVM
>> are going through the Ultravisor, and the Ultravisor should filter out
>> these malicious call. This way, only the Ultravisor is able to make such a
>> Hcall.
>
> "Ultravisor should filter" ? And what if it doesn't (eg. because of a bug) ?
If it doesn't, a malicious SVM would be able to call UV reserved Hcall like
H_SVM_INIT_ABORT, etc... which is not a good idea.
>
> Shouldn't we also check the HV bit of the calling MSR as well to
> disambiguate SVM and UV ?
That's another way to do so, but since the SVM Hcall are going through the UV,
it seems the right place (the UV) to do the filtering.
>>
>> Cc: Bharata B Rao <bharata@linux.ibm.com>
>> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>
>> Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
>> Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
>> Signed-off-by: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c
>> index 33be4d93248a..43773182a737 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c
>> @@ -1074,25 +1074,35 @@ int kvmppc_pseries_do_hcall(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> kvmppc_get_gpr(vcpu, 6));
>> break;
>> case H_SVM_PAGE_IN:
>> - ret = kvmppc_h_svm_page_in(vcpu->kvm,
>> - kvmppc_get_gpr(vcpu, 4),
>> - kvmppc_get_gpr(vcpu, 5),
>> - kvmppc_get_gpr(vcpu, 6));
>> + ret = H_UNSUPPORTED;
>> + if (kvmppc_get_srr1(vcpu) & MSR_S)
>> + ret = kvmppc_h_svm_page_in(vcpu->kvm,
>> + kvmppc_get_gpr(vcpu, 4),
>> + kvmppc_get_gpr(vcpu, 5),
>> + kvmppc_get_gpr(vcpu, 6));
>
> If calling kvmppc_h_svm_page_in() produces a "weird result" when
> the MSR_S bit isn't set, then I think it should do the checking
> itself, ie. pass vcpu.
>
> This would also prevent adding that many lines in kvmppc_pseries_do_hcall()
> which is a big enough function already. The checking could be done in a
> helper in book3s_hv_uvmem.c and used by all UV specific hcalls.
I'm not convinced that would be better, and I followed the way checks for other
Hcalls has been made (see H_TLB_INVALIDATE,..).
I agree kvmppc_pseries_do_hcall() is long but this is just a big switch(),
quite linear.
>
>> break;
>> case H_SVM_PAGE_OUT:
>> - ret = kvmppc_h_svm_page_out(vcpu->kvm,
>> - kvmppc_get_gpr(vcpu, 4),
>> - kvmppc_get_gpr(vcpu, 5),
>> - kvmppc_get_gpr(vcpu, 6));
>> + ret = H_UNSUPPORTED;
>> + if (kvmppc_get_srr1(vcpu) & MSR_S)
>> + ret = kvmppc_h_svm_page_out(vcpu->kvm,
>> + kvmppc_get_gpr(vcpu, 4),
>> + kvmppc_get_gpr(vcpu, 5),
>> + kvmppc_get_gpr(vcpu, 6));
>> break;
>> case H_SVM_INIT_START:
>> - ret = kvmppc_h_svm_init_start(vcpu->kvm);
>> + ret = H_UNSUPPORTED;
>> + if (kvmppc_get_srr1(vcpu) & MSR_S)
>> + ret = kvmppc_h_svm_init_start(vcpu->kvm);
>> break;
>> case H_SVM_INIT_DONE:
>> - ret = kvmppc_h_svm_init_done(vcpu->kvm);
>> + ret = H_UNSUPPORTED;
>> + if (kvmppc_get_srr1(vcpu) & MSR_S)
>> + ret = kvmppc_h_svm_init_done(vcpu->kvm);
>> break;
>> case H_SVM_INIT_ABORT:
>> - ret = kvmppc_h_svm_init_abort(vcpu->kvm);
>> + ret = H_UNSUPPORTED;
>> + if (kvmppc_get_srr1(vcpu) & MSR_S)
>> + ret = kvmppc_h_svm_init_abort(vcpu->kvm);
>> break;
>>
>> default:
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-20 14:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-20 10:26 [PATCH 0/2] Fix SVM hang at startup Laurent Dufour
2020-03-20 10:26 ` [PATCH 1/2] KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: check caller of H_SVM_* Hcalls Laurent Dufour
2020-03-20 12:22 ` Greg Kurz
2020-03-20 14:43 ` Laurent Dufour [this message]
2020-03-23 23:43 ` Paul Mackerras
2020-03-24 12:00 ` Greg Kurz
2020-03-24 13:13 ` Laurent Dufour
2020-03-21 0:40 ` Ram Pai
2020-03-20 10:26 ` [PATCH 2/2] KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: H_SVM_INIT_START must call UV_RETURN Laurent Dufour
2020-03-20 11:24 ` Bharata B Rao
2020-03-20 14:36 ` Laurent Dufour
2020-03-23 4:21 ` Bharata B Rao
2020-03-21 0:47 ` Ram Pai
2020-03-23 14:09 ` Fabiano Rosas
2020-03-24 2:54 ` [PATCH 0/2] Fix SVM hang at startup Paul Mackerras
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=2268d1e3-3020-91c4-90e2-d2eced6a214a@linux.ibm.com \
--to=ldufour@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=bharata@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=groug@kaod.org \
--cc=kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).