Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752850AbdDCMbB convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Apr 2017 08:31:01 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54452 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752615AbdDCMa7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Apr 2017 08:30:59 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com BB74A81254 Authentication-Results: ext-mx01.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx01.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pagupta@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com BB74A81254 Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 08:30:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Pankaj Gupta To: David Hildenbrand Cc: Wanpeng Li , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini , Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= , Wanpeng Li , Dmitry Vyukov , Alex Williamson , "# v3 . 10+" Message-ID: <1478977669.10395230.1491222644327.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: References: <1490595800-15060-1-git-send-email-wanpeng.li@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: mmu: Fix overlap with private memslots MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Originating-IP: [10.67.116.32] Thread-Topic: Fix overlap with private memslots Thread-Index: nsJWcyhiXx54Zz4a1WYr/kgY5k1+nw== X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.25]); Mon, 03 Apr 2017 12:30:58 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4211 Lines: 132 > On 27.03.2017 08:23, Wanpeng Li wrote: > > From: Wanpeng Li > > > > Reported by syzkaller: > > > > pte_list_remove: ffff9714eb1f8078 0->BUG > > ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > kernel BUG at arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c:1157! > > invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP > > RIP: 0010:pte_list_remove+0x11b/0x120 [kvm] > > Call Trace: > > drop_spte+0x83/0xb0 [kvm] > > mmu_page_zap_pte+0xcc/0xe0 [kvm] > > kvm_mmu_prepare_zap_page+0x81/0x4a0 [kvm] > > kvm_mmu_invalidate_zap_all_pages+0x159/0x220 [kvm] > > kvm_arch_flush_shadow_all+0xe/0x10 [kvm] > > kvm_mmu_notifier_release+0x6c/0xa0 [kvm] > > ? kvm_mmu_notifier_release+0x5/0xa0 [kvm] > > __mmu_notifier_release+0x79/0x110 > > ? __mmu_notifier_release+0x5/0x110 > > exit_mmap+0x15a/0x170 > > ? do_exit+0x281/0xcb0 > > mmput+0x66/0x160 > > do_exit+0x2c9/0xcb0 > > ? __context_tracking_exit.part.5+0x4a/0x150 > > do_group_exit+0x50/0xd0 > > SyS_exit_group+0x14/0x20 > > do_syscall_64+0x73/0x1f0 > > entry_SYSCALL64_slow_path+0x25/0x25 > > > > The reason is that when creates new memslot, there is no guarantee for new > > memslot not overlap with private memslots. This can be triggered by the > > following program: > > > > #include > > #include > > #include > > #include > > #include > > #include > > #include > > #include > > #include > > #include > > #include > > #include > > #include > > #include > > #include > > > > long r[16]; > > > > int main() > > { > > void *p = valloc(0x4000); > > > > r[2] = open("/dev/kvm", 0); > > r[3] = ioctl(r[2], KVM_CREATE_VM, 0x0ul); > > > > uint64_t addr = 0xf000; > > ioctl(r[3], KVM_SET_IDENTITY_MAP_ADDR, &addr); > > r[6] = ioctl(r[3], KVM_CREATE_VCPU, 0x0ul); > > ioctl(r[3], KVM_SET_TSS_ADDR, 0x0ul); > > ioctl(r[6], KVM_RUN, 0); > > ioctl(r[6], KVM_RUN, 0); > > > > struct kvm_userspace_memory_region mr = { > > .slot = 0, > > .flags = KVM_MEM_LOG_DIRTY_PAGES, > > .guest_phys_addr = 0xf000, > > .memory_size = 0x4000, > > .userspace_addr = (uintptr_t) p > > }; > > ioctl(r[3], KVM_SET_USER_MEMORY_REGION, &mr); > > return 0; > > } > > > > This bug is caused by 'commit 5419369ed6bd ("KVM: Fix user memslot overlap > > check")' which removes the check to avoid to add new memslot who overlaps > > with private memslots. This patch fixes it by not add new memslot if it > > is also overlap with private memslots. > > > > Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov > > Cc: Paolo Bonzini > > Cc: Radim Krčmář > > Cc: Dmitry Vyukov > > Cc: Alex Williamson > > Cc: # v3.10+ > > Fixes: 5419369ed (KVM: Fix user memslot overlap check) > > Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li > > --- > > virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 3 +-- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > > index a17d787..ddeb18a 100644 > > --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > > +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > > @@ -978,8 +978,7 @@ int __kvm_set_memory_region(struct kvm *kvm, > > /* Check for overlaps */ > > r = -EEXIST; > > kvm_for_each_memslot(slot, __kvm_memslots(kvm, as_id)) { > > - if ((slot->id >= KVM_USER_MEM_SLOTS) || > > - (slot->id == id)) > > + if (slot->id == id) > > continue; > > if (!((base_gfn + npages <= slot->base_gfn) || > > (base_gfn >= slot->base_gfn + slot->npages))) > > > > I wonder why the orginal patch explicitly mentions > > "Prior to memory slot sorting this loop compared all of the user memory > slots... and skip comparison to private slots.". > > Was/is there some use case where this was intended to work? I also thought about this. If this condition passes and it bypass check for slot overlap. (slot->id >= KVM_USER_MEM_SLOTS) But still wanted to know the case for which this check was there. > > -- > > Thanks, > > David >