Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 29 Aug 2018 13:18:22 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To:     Liran Alon <liran.alon@oracle.com>
Cc:     Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: LAPIC: Fix pv ipis out-of-bounds access
Message-ID: <20180829101822.qo3u7lsmghs3kcuf@mwanda>
References: <1535521943-5547-1-git-send-email-wanpengli@tencent.com>
 <A523C29C-C3E8-4FEF-8620-96365F774582@oracle.com>
 <20180829101205.jsp53e2wq7fc6ukd@mwanda>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20180829101205.jsp53e2wq7fc6ukd@mwanda>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 01:12:05PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 12:05:06PM +0300, Liran Alon wrote:
> > > arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c | 17 +++++++++++++----
> > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
> > > index 0cefba2..86e933c 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
> > > @@ -571,18 +571,27 @@ int kvm_pv_send_ipi(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long ipi_bitmap_low,
> > > 	rcu_read_lock();
> > > 	map = rcu_dereference(kvm->arch.apic_map);
> > > 
> > > +	if (unlikely((s32)(map->max_apic_id - __fls(ipi_bitmap_low)) < min))
> > > +		goto out;
> > 
> > I personally think “if ((min + __fls(ipi_bitmap_low)) > map->max_apic_id)” is more readable.
> > But that’s just a matter of taste :)
> 
> That's an integer overflow.
> 
> But I do prefer to put the variable on the left.  The truth is that some
> Smatch checks just ignore code which is backwards written because
> otherwise you have to write duplicate code and the most code is written
> with the variable on the left.
> 
> 	if (min > (s32)(map->max_apic_id - __fls(ipi_bitmap_low))

Wait, the (s32) cast doesn't make sense.  We want negative min values to
be treated as invalid.

regards,
dan carpenter