Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: arm64: vgic: Forbid invalid userspace
 Redistributor accesses
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
CC:     <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
        <james.morse@arm.com>, <julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com>,
        <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>, <wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com>,
        Keqian Zhu <zhukeqian1@huawei.com>
References: <20201113142801.1659-1-yuzenghui@huawei.com>
 <20201113142801.1659-2-yuzenghui@huawei.com>
 <724c43702b52aac0d3c9beb9604d1bfb@kernel.org>
 <584b7ff1-ecf2-b0ec-cea3-ccc29902f43a@huawei.com>
 <cc45285fe491aff5c28a24f94c124508@kernel.org>
From:   Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <7e58200c-814e-3598-155a-9a7e6cc24374@huawei.com>
Date:   Mon, 16 Nov 2020 22:57:26 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <cc45285fe491aff5c28a24f94c124508@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi Marc,

On 2020/11/16 22:10, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> My take is that only if the "[Re]Distributor base address" is specified
>> in the system memory map, will the user-provided kvm_device_attr.offset
>> make sense. And we can then handle the access to the register which is
>> defined by "base address + offset".
> 
> I'd tend to agree, but it is just that this is a large change at -rc4.
> I'd rather have a quick fix for 5.10, and a more invasive change for 5.11,
> spanning all the possible vgic devices.

So you prefer fixing it by "return a value that doesn't have the Last
bit set" for v5.10? I'm ok with it and can send v2 for it.

Btw, looking again at the way we handle the user-reading of GICR_TYPER

	vgic_mmio_read_v3r_typer(vcpu, addr, len)

it seems that @addr is actually the *offset* of GICR_TYPER (0x0008) and
@addr is unlikely to be equal to last_rdist_typer, which is the *GPA* of
the last RD. Looks like the user-reading of GICR_TYPER.Last is always
broken?


Thanks,
Zenghui