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:   Thu, 29 Jul 2021 17:52:49 +0100
From:   Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
To:     David Brazdil <dbrazdil@google.com>
Cc:     kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: arm64: Fix off-by-one in range_is_memory
Message-ID: <YQLc4YlDfMRbnRJh@google.com>
References: <20210728153232.1018911-1-dbrazdil@google.com>
 <20210728153232.1018911-2-dbrazdil@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210728153232.1018911-2-dbrazdil@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wednesday 28 Jul 2021 at 15:32:31 (+0000), David Brazdil wrote:
> Hyp checks whether an address range only covers RAM by checking the
> start/endpoints against a list of memblock_region structs. However,
> the endpoint here is exclusive but internally is treated as inclusive.
> Fix the off-by-one error that caused valid address ranges to be
> rejected.
> 
> Cc: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
> Fixes: 90134ac9cabb6 ("KVM: arm64: Protect the .hyp sections from the host")
> Signed-off-by: David Brazdil <dbrazdil@google.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> index d938ce95d3bd..a6ce991b1467 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ static bool range_is_memory(u64 start, u64 end)
>  {
>  	struct kvm_mem_range r1, r2;
>  
> -	if (!find_mem_range(start, &r1) || !find_mem_range(end, &r2))
> +	if (!find_mem_range(start, &r1) || !find_mem_range(end - 1, &r2))
>  		return false;
>  	if (r1.start != r2.start)
>  		return false;

Looks good to me:

Reviewed-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>

Thanks,
Quentin