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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1535521943-5547-1-git-send-email-wanpengli@tencent.com>
 <A523C29C-C3E8-4FEF-8620-96365F774582@oracle.com> <20180829101205.jsp53e2wq7fc6ukd@mwanda>
 <20180829101822.qo3u7lsmghs3kcuf@mwanda>
In-Reply-To: <20180829101822.qo3u7lsmghs3kcuf@mwanda>
From:   Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 29 Aug 2018 18:23:08 +0800
Message-ID: <CANRm+Cy9n=2Ssy_cEWRtnoQJczjdqB+m-dA6zesz75r0h532iA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: LAPIC: Fix pv ipis out-of-bounds access
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Cc:     Liran Alon <liran.alon@oracle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 at 18:18, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> wrot=
e:
>
> 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 =3D rcu_dereference(kvm->arch.apic_map);
> > > >
> > > > + if (unlikely((s32)(map->max_apic_id - __fls(ipi_bitmap_low)) < mi=
n))
> > > > +         goto out;
> > >
> > > I personally think =E2=80=9Cif ((min + __fls(ipi_bitmap_low)) > map->=
max_apic_id)=E2=80=9D is more readable.
> > > But that=E2=80=99s 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 som=
e
> > 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.

In v2, how about:

if (unlikely(min > map->max_apic_id || (min + __fls(ipi_bitmap_low)) >
map->max_apic_id))
    goto out;

0xFFFFFFFF is converted to int min =3D -1;

Regards,
Wanpeng Li