* [PATCH] hw/i386/fw_cfg: Add etc/e820 to fw_cfg late
@ 2024-06-17 13:46 David Woodhouse
2024-06-17 14:15 ` Peter Maydell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: David Woodhouse @ 2024-06-17 13:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: qemu-devel
Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin, Marcel Apfelbaum, Paolo Bonzini,
Richard Henderson, Eduardo Habkost, Sergio Lopez, Peter Maydell
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3937 bytes --]
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
In e820_add_entry() the e820_table is reallocated with g_renew() to make
space for a new entry. However, fw_cfg_arch_create() just uses the existing
e820_table pointer.
This leads to a use-after-free if anything adds a new entry after fw_cfg
is set up. Shift the addition of the etc/e820 file to the machine done
notifier, and add a sanity check to ensure that e820_table isn't
modified after the pointer gets stashed.
Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
---
hw/i386/e820_memory_layout.c | 8 ++++++++
hw/i386/fw_cfg.c | 7 ++++---
hw/i386/microvm.c | 5 +++--
3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/i386/e820_memory_layout.c b/hw/i386/e820_memory_layout.c
index 06970ac44a..c96515909e 100644
--- a/hw/i386/e820_memory_layout.c
+++ b/hw/i386/e820_memory_layout.c
@@ -8,13 +8,20 @@
#include "qemu/osdep.h"
#include "qemu/bswap.h"
+#include "qemu/error-report.h"
#include "e820_memory_layout.h"
static size_t e820_entries;
struct e820_entry *e820_table;
+static gboolean e820_done;
int e820_add_entry(uint64_t address, uint64_t length, uint32_t type)
{
+ if (e820_done) {
+ warn_report("warning: E820 modified after being consumed");
+ return -1;
+ }
+
/* new "etc/e820" file -- include ram and reserved entries */
e820_table = g_renew(struct e820_entry, e820_table, e820_entries + 1);
e820_table[e820_entries].address = cpu_to_le64(address);
@@ -27,6 +34,7 @@ int e820_add_entry(uint64_t address, uint64_t length, uint32_t type)
int e820_get_num_entries(void)
{
+ e820_done = true;
return e820_entries;
}
diff --git a/hw/i386/fw_cfg.c b/hw/i386/fw_cfg.c
index 6e0d9945d0..e046ad1a54 100644
--- a/hw/i386/fw_cfg.c
+++ b/hw/i386/fw_cfg.c
@@ -102,6 +102,10 @@ void fw_cfg_build_smbios(PCMachineState *pcms, FWCfgState *fw_cfg,
smbios_anchor, smbios_anchor_len);
}
#endif
+
+ /* Add etc/e820 late, once all regions should be present */
+ fw_cfg_add_file(fw_cfg, "etc/e820", e820_table,
+ sizeof(struct e820_entry) * e820_get_num_entries());
}
FWCfgState *fw_cfg_arch_create(MachineState *ms,
@@ -139,9 +143,6 @@ FWCfgState *fw_cfg_arch_create(MachineState *ms,
#endif
fw_cfg_add_i32(fw_cfg, FW_CFG_IRQ0_OVERRIDE, 1);
- fw_cfg_add_file(fw_cfg, "etc/e820", e820_table,
- sizeof(struct e820_entry) * e820_get_num_entries());
-
fw_cfg_add_bytes(fw_cfg, FW_CFG_HPET, &hpet_cfg, sizeof(hpet_cfg));
/* allocate memory for the NUMA channel: one (64bit) word for the number
* of nodes, one word for each VCPU->node and one word for each node to
diff --git a/hw/i386/microvm.c b/hw/i386/microvm.c
index fec63cacfa..89b2abcebf 100644
--- a/hw/i386/microvm.c
+++ b/hw/i386/microvm.c
@@ -324,8 +324,6 @@ static void microvm_memory_init(MicrovmMachineState *mms)
fw_cfg_add_i16(fw_cfg, FW_CFG_MAX_CPUS, machine->smp.max_cpus);
fw_cfg_add_i64(fw_cfg, FW_CFG_RAM_SIZE, (uint64_t)machine->ram_size);
fw_cfg_add_i32(fw_cfg, FW_CFG_IRQ0_OVERRIDE, 1);
- fw_cfg_add_file(fw_cfg, "etc/e820", e820_table,
- sizeof(struct e820_entry) * e820_get_num_entries());
rom_set_fw(fw_cfg);
@@ -586,9 +584,12 @@ static void microvm_machine_done(Notifier *notifier, void *data)
{
MicrovmMachineState *mms = container_of(notifier, MicrovmMachineState,
machine_done);
+ X86MachineState *x86ms = X86_MACHINE(mms);
acpi_setup_microvm(mms);
dt_setup_microvm(mms);
+ fw_cfg_add_file(x86ms->fw_cfg, "etc/e820", e820_table,
+ sizeof(struct e820_entry) * e820_get_num_entries());
}
static void microvm_powerdown_req(Notifier *notifier, void *data)
--
2.44.0
[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 5965 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] hw/i386/fw_cfg: Add etc/e820 to fw_cfg late
2024-06-17 13:46 [PATCH] hw/i386/fw_cfg: Add etc/e820 to fw_cfg late David Woodhouse
@ 2024-06-17 14:15 ` Peter Maydell
2024-06-17 14:36 ` David Woodhouse
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Peter Maydell @ 2024-06-17 14:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Woodhouse
Cc: qemu-devel, Michael S. Tsirkin, Marcel Apfelbaum, Paolo Bonzini,
Richard Henderson, Eduardo Habkost, Sergio Lopez
On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 at 14:46, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> From: David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
>
> In e820_add_entry() the e820_table is reallocated with g_renew() to make
> space for a new entry. However, fw_cfg_arch_create() just uses the existing
> e820_table pointer.
>
> This leads to a use-after-free if anything adds a new entry after fw_cfg
> is set up. Shift the addition of the etc/e820 file to the machine done
> notifier, and add a sanity check to ensure that e820_table isn't
> modified after the pointer gets stashed.
Given that e820_add_entry() will happily g_renew() the memory,
it seems a bit bug-prone to have e820_table be a global variable.
Maybe we should have an e820_add_fw_cfg_file() which does the
fw_cfg_add_file(fw_cfg, "etc/e820", e820_table,
sizeof(struct e820_entry) * e820_get_num_entries());
-- that would then let us make e820_table be file-local, and so
it's then easy to audit that all the functions that look at
e820_table check that the table has been finalized first (because
they're all in this one file).
> Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
> ---
> hw/i386/e820_memory_layout.c | 8 ++++++++
> hw/i386/fw_cfg.c | 7 ++++---
> hw/i386/microvm.c | 5 +++--
> 3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/i386/e820_memory_layout.c b/hw/i386/e820_memory_layout.c
> index 06970ac44a..c96515909e 100644
> --- a/hw/i386/e820_memory_layout.c
> +++ b/hw/i386/e820_memory_layout.c
> @@ -8,13 +8,20 @@
>
> #include "qemu/osdep.h"
> #include "qemu/bswap.h"
> +#include "qemu/error-report.h"
> #include "e820_memory_layout.h"
>
> static size_t e820_entries;
> struct e820_entry *e820_table;
> +static gboolean e820_done;
>
> int e820_add_entry(uint64_t address, uint64_t length, uint32_t type)
> {
> + if (e820_done) {
> + warn_report("warning: E820 modified after being consumed");
> + return -1;
> + }
I think this should be a fatal error (i.e. assert) -- it should
never happen, and always would be a bug in QEMU somewhere.
Currently e820_add_entry() returns the number of entries
currently present. Of the various callsites, almost all ignore
the return value. Two treat it as a "negative means error"
situation (with an error handling path that's currently dead code):
target/i386/kvm/kvm.c and target/i386/kvm/xen-emu.c.
My suggestion is that we make e820_add_entry() return void,
and remove that dead error handling path.
thanks
-- PMM
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] hw/i386/fw_cfg: Add etc/e820 to fw_cfg late
2024-06-17 14:15 ` Peter Maydell
@ 2024-06-17 14:36 ` David Woodhouse
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: David Woodhouse @ 2024-06-17 14:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Maydell
Cc: qemu-devel, Michael S. Tsirkin, Marcel Apfelbaum, Paolo Bonzini,
Richard Henderson, Eduardo Habkost, Sergio Lopez
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3433 bytes --]
On Mon, 2024-06-17 at 15:15 +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 at 14:46, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > From: David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
> >
> > In e820_add_entry() the e820_table is reallocated with g_renew() to make
> > space for a new entry. However, fw_cfg_arch_create() just uses the existing
> > e820_table pointer.
> >
> > This leads to a use-after-free if anything adds a new entry after fw_cfg
> > is set up. Shift the addition of the etc/e820 file to the machine done
> > notifier, and add a sanity check to ensure that e820_table isn't
> > modified after the pointer gets stashed.
>
> Given that e820_add_entry() will happily g_renew() the memory,
> it seems a bit bug-prone to have e820_table be a global variable.
> Maybe we should have an e820_add_fw_cfg_file() which does the
>
> fw_cfg_add_file(fw_cfg, "etc/e820", e820_table,
> sizeof(struct e820_entry) * e820_get_num_entries());
>
> -- that would then let us make e820_table be file-local, and so
> it's then easy to audit that all the functions that look at
> e820_table check that the table has been finalized first (because
> they're all in this one file).
Yeah, I pondered that, but wasn't sure I wanted to add a dependency on
fw_cfg directly in the e820 code. So I pondered making e820_table
static and using an accessor function... but then figured that since
there's *already* an accessor for the table size, I could just use
that.
I suppose we could have a single function which returns both the table
pointer *and* its size. It's a slight cleanup, but seemed like more
churn that it was worth, and being C obviously it can't literally
*return* both, so it just gets slightly ugly. Happy to do it if you
feel strongly.
> > Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
> > ---
> > hw/i386/e820_memory_layout.c | 8 ++++++++
> > hw/i386/fw_cfg.c | 7 ++++---
> > hw/i386/microvm.c | 5 +++--
> > 3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/hw/i386/e820_memory_layout.c b/hw/i386/e820_memory_layout.c
> > index 06970ac44a..c96515909e 100644
> > --- a/hw/i386/e820_memory_layout.c
> > +++ b/hw/i386/e820_memory_layout.c
> > @@ -8,13 +8,20 @@
> >
> > #include "qemu/osdep.h"
> > #include "qemu/bswap.h"
> > +#include "qemu/error-report.h"
> > #include "e820_memory_layout.h"
> >
> > static size_t e820_entries;
> > struct e820_entry *e820_table;
> > +static gboolean e820_done;
> >
> > int e820_add_entry(uint64_t address, uint64_t length, uint32_t type)
> > {
> > + if (e820_done) {
> > + warn_report("warning: E820 modified after being consumed");
> > + return -1;
> > + }
>
> I think this should be a fatal error (i.e. assert) -- it should
> never happen, and always would be a bug in QEMU somewhere.
OK.
> Currently e820_add_entry() returns the number of entries
> currently present. Of the various callsites, almost all ignore
> the return value. Two treat it as a "negative means error"
> situation (with an error handling path that's currently dead code):
> target/i386/kvm/kvm.c and target/i386/kvm/xen-emu.c.
>
> My suggestion is that we make e820_add_entry() return void,
> and remove that dead error handling path.
Ack.
[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 5965 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-06-17 14:36 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-06-17 13:46 [PATCH] hw/i386/fw_cfg: Add etc/e820 to fw_cfg late David Woodhouse
2024-06-17 14:15 ` Peter Maydell
2024-06-17 14:36 ` David Woodhouse
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).