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, 23 Jan 2019 10:25:40 -0800
From:   Tom Roeder <tmroeder@google.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
        Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        Liran Alon <liran.alon@oracle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        syzbot+ded1696f6b50b615b630@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] kvm: x86/vmx: Use kzalloc for cached_vmcs12
Message-ID: <20190123182540.GA160275@google.com>
References: <6f79d9be-fa76-3a06-2612-f44f3a18ece7@redhat.com>
 <20190114234728.49239-1-tmroeder@google.com>
 <20190115024304.GD5141@linux.intel.com>
 <2177074d-f610-0d86-7399-e63ba851346c@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2177074d-f610-0d86-7399-e63ba851346c@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 11:15:51AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 15/01/19 03:43, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> >> -	vmx->nested.cached_vmcs12 = kmalloc(VMCS12_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
> >> +	vmx->nested.cached_vmcs12 = kzalloc(VMCS12_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
> >>  	if (!vmx->nested.cached_vmcs12)
> >>  		goto out_cached_vmcs12;
> > Obviously not your code, but why do we allocate VMCS12_SIZE instead of
> > sizeof(struct vmcs12)?  I get why we require userspace to reserve the
> > full 4k, but I don't understand why KVM needs to allocate the reserved
> > bytes internally.
> 
> It's just cleaner and shorter code to copy everything in and out,
> instead of having to explicitly zero the slack.

Could you please clarify? I don't see code that copies everything in and
out, but it depends on what you mean by "everything". In the context of
this email exchange, I assumed that "everything" was "all 4k
(VMCS12_SIZE)".

But it looks to me like the code doesn't copy 4k in and out, but rather
only ever copies sizeof(struct vmcs12) in and out. The copy_from_user
and copy_to_user cases in nested.c use sizeof(*vmcs12), which is
sizeof(struct vmcs12).

So maybe can switch to allocating sizeof(struct vmcs12). Is this
correct, or is there some other reason to allocate the larger size?