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;
Date:   Wed, 7 Apr 2021 21:07:13 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Cc:     kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: SVM: Make sure GHCB is mapped before updating
Message-ID: <YG4fAeaTy0HdHCsT@google.com>
References: <03b349cb19b360d4c2bbeebdd171f99298082d28.1617820214.git.thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
 <YG4RSl88TSPccRfj@google.com>
 <d46ee7c3-6c8c-1f06-605c-c4f2d1888ba4@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d46ee7c3-6c8c-1f06-605c-c4f2d1888ba4@amd.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 07, 2021, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 4/7/21 3:08 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 07, 2021, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> >> From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
> >>
> >> The sev_vcpu_deliver_sipi_vector() routine will update the GHCB to inform
> >> the caller of the AP Reset Hold NAE event that a SIPI has been delivered.
> >> However, if a SIPI is performed without a corresponding AP Reset Hold,
> >> then the GHCB may not be mapped, which will result in a NULL pointer
> >> dereference.
> >>
> >> Check that the GHCB is mapped before attempting the update.
> > 
> > It's tempting to say the ghcb_set_*() helpers should guard against this, but
> > that would add a lot of pollution and the vast majority of uses are very clearly
> > in the vmgexit path.  svm_complete_emulated_msr() is the only other case that
> > is non-obvious; would it make sense to sanity check svm->ghcb there as well?
> 
> Hmm... I'm not sure if we can get here without having taken the VMGEXIT
> path to start, but it certainly couldn't hurt to add it.

Yeah, AFAICT it should be impossible to reach the callback without a valid ghcb,
it'd be purely be a sanity check.
 
> I can submit a v2 with that unless you want to submit it (with one small
> change below).

I'd say just throw it into v2.

> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
> > index 019ac836dcd0..abe9c765628f 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
> > @@ -2728,7 +2728,8 @@ static int svm_get_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info)
> >  static int svm_complete_emulated_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int err)
> >  {
> >         struct vcpu_svm *svm = to_svm(vcpu);
> > -       if (!sev_es_guest(vcpu->kvm) || !err)
> > +
> > +       if (!err || !sev_es_guest(vcpu->kvm) || !WARN_ON_ONCE(svm->ghcb))
> 
> This should be WARN_ON_ONCE(!svm->ghcb), otherwise you'll get the right
> result, but get a stack trace immediately.

Doh, yep.