public inbox for stable@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@arm.com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
	Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
	Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
	stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Fix kvm_has_feat*() handling of negative features
Date: Wed,  2 Oct 2024 21:42:39 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20241002204239.2051637-1-maz@kernel.org> (raw)

Oliver reports that the kvm_has_feat() helper is not behaviing as
expected for negative feature. On investigation, the main issue
seems to be caused by the following construct:

 	(id##_##fld##_SIGNED ?					\
	 get_idreg_field_signed(kvm, id, fld) :			\
	 get_idreg_field_unsigned(kvm, id, fld))

where one side of the expression evaluates as something signed,
and the other as something unsigned. In retrospect, this is totally
braindead, as the compiler converts this into an unsigned expression.
When compared to something that is 0, the test is simply elided.

Epic fail. Similar issue exists in the expand_field_sign() macro.

The correct way to handle this is to chose between signed and unsigned
comparisons, so that both sides of the ternary expression are of the
same type (bool).

In order to keep the code readable (sort of), we introduce new
comparison primitives taking an operator as a parameter, and
rewrite the kvm_has_feat*() helpers in terms of these primitives.

Fixes: c62d7a23b947 ("KVM: arm64: Add feature checking helpers")
Reported-by: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>
Tested-by: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>
Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
---
 arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 25 +++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
index aab1e59aa91e..e9e9b57782e4 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
@@ -1490,11 +1490,6 @@ void kvm_set_vm_id_reg(struct kvm *kvm, u32 reg, u64 val);
 		sign_extend64(__val, id##_##fld##_WIDTH - 1);		\
 	})
 
-#define expand_field_sign(id, fld, val)					\
-	(id##_##fld##_SIGNED ?						\
-	 __expand_field_sign_signed(id, fld, val) :			\
-	 __expand_field_sign_unsigned(id, fld, val))
-
 #define get_idreg_field_unsigned(kvm, id, fld)				\
 	({								\
 		u64 __val = kvm_read_vm_id_reg((kvm), SYS_##id);	\
@@ -1510,20 +1505,26 @@ void kvm_set_vm_id_reg(struct kvm *kvm, u32 reg, u64 val);
 #define get_idreg_field_enum(kvm, id, fld)				\
 	get_idreg_field_unsigned(kvm, id, fld)
 
-#define get_idreg_field(kvm, id, fld)					\
+#define kvm_cmp_feat_signed(kvm, id, fld, op, limit)			\
+	(get_idreg_field_signed((kvm), id, fld) op __expand_field_sign_signed(id, fld, limit))
+
+#define kvm_cmp_feat_unsigned(kvm, id, fld, op, limit)			\
+	(get_idreg_field_unsigned((kvm), id, fld) op __expand_field_sign_unsigned(id, fld, limit))
+
+#define kvm_cmp_feat(kvm, id, fld, op, limit)				\
 	(id##_##fld##_SIGNED ?						\
-	 get_idreg_field_signed(kvm, id, fld) :				\
-	 get_idreg_field_unsigned(kvm, id, fld))
+	 kvm_cmp_feat_signed(kvm, id, fld, op, limit) :			\
+	 kvm_cmp_feat_unsigned(kvm, id, fld, op, limit))
 
 #define kvm_has_feat(kvm, id, fld, limit)				\
-	(get_idreg_field((kvm), id, fld) >= expand_field_sign(id, fld, limit))
+	kvm_cmp_feat(kvm, id, fld, >=, limit)
 
 #define kvm_has_feat_enum(kvm, id, fld, val)				\
-	(get_idreg_field_unsigned((kvm), id, fld) == __expand_field_sign_unsigned(id, fld, val))
+	kvm_cmp_feat_unsigned(kvm, id, fld, ==, val)
 
 #define kvm_has_feat_range(kvm, id, fld, min, max)			\
-	(get_idreg_field((kvm), id, fld) >= expand_field_sign(id, fld, min) && \
-	 get_idreg_field((kvm), id, fld) <= expand_field_sign(id, fld, max))
+	(kvm_cmp_feat(kvm, id, fld, >=, min) &&				\
+	kvm_cmp_feat(kvm, id, fld, <=, max))
 
 /* Check for a given level of PAuth support */
 #define kvm_has_pauth(k, l)						\
-- 
2.39.2


             reply	other threads:[~2024-10-02 20:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-10-02 20:42 Marc Zyngier [this message]
2024-10-03 18:38 ` [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Fix kvm_has_feat*() handling of negative features Marc Zyngier

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=20241002204239.2051637-1-maz@kernel.org \
    --to=maz@kernel.org \
    --cc=joey.gouly@arm.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
    --cc=yuzenghui@huawei.com \
    /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