Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Validate the FF-A memory access descriptor placement

Marc Zyngier
2026-04-23T08:08:49Z

On Wed, 22 Apr 2026 14:35:55 +0100,
Sebastian Ene <sebastianene@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 01:24:02PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Apr 2026 11:25:40 +0100,
> > Sebastian Ene <sebastianene@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Prevent the pKVM hypervisor from making assumptions that the
> > > endpoint memory access descriptor (EMAD) comes right after the
> > > FF-A memory region header and enforce a strict placement for it
> > > when validating an FF-A memory lend/share transaction.
>
> Hello Marc,
>
> >
> > As I read this, you want to remove a bad assumption...
> >
> > >
> > > Prior to FF-A version 1.1 the header of the memory region
> > > didn't contain an offset to the endpoint memory access descriptor.
> > > The layout of a memory transaction looks like this:
> > >
> > > Field name | Offset
> > > -- 0
> > > [ Header (ffa_mem_region) |__ ep_mem_offset
> > > EMAD 1 (ffa_mem_region_attributes) |
> > > ]
> > >
> > > Reject the host from specifying a memory access descriptor offset
> > > that is different than the size of the memory region header.
> >
> > And yet you decide that you want to enforce this assumption. I don't
> > understand how you arrive to this conclusion.
> >
> > Looking at the spec, it appears that the offset is *designed* to allow
> > a gap between the header and the EMAD. Refusing to handle a it seems to be a
> > violation of the spec.
> >
> > What am I missing?
>
> While the spec allows the gap to be variable (since version 1.1), the
> arm ff-a driver places it at a fixed position in:
> ffa_mem_region_additional_setup()
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v7.0/source/drivers/firmware/arm_ffa/driver.c#L671

That's an implementation detail, and you shouldn't rely on this.

> and makes use of the same assumption in: ffa_mem_desc_offset().
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v7.0/source/include/linux/arm_ffa.h#L448
> The later one seems wrong IMO. because we should compute the offset
> based on the value stored in ep_mem_offset and not adding it up with
> sizeof(struct ffa_mem_region).
>
> Maybe this should be the fix instead and not the one in pKVM ? What do
> you think ?

I think you should parse the buffers as the spec intends them, without
assumptions or limitations.

>
> The current implementation in pKVM makes use of the
> ffa_mem_desc_offset() to validate the first EMAD. If a compromised host
> places an EMAD at a different offset than sizeof(struct ffa_mem_region),
> then pKVM will not validate that EMAD.

Why compromised? Isn't that a perfectly valid thing to do? What I
understand is that the FFA 1.1 implementation in pKVM doesn't match
the expectations of the spec. If that's indeed the case, pKVM should
be fixed to accept these messages correctly, or stop using FFA 1.1.

M.

--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.