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, 8 Sep 2021 18:42:22 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Cc:     Jiang Jiasheng <jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org,
        pbonzini@redhat.com, wanpengli@tencent.com, jmattson@google.com,
        joro@8bytes.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
        bp@alien8.de, x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, jarkko@kernel.org,
        dave.hansen@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] KVM: X86: Potential 'index out of range' bug
Message-ID: <YTkEDoe8R5JJ77+B@google.com>
References: <1630655700-798374-1-git-send-email-jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>
 <87czppnasv.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
 <YTI5SYVTJHiMdm+W@google.com>
 <87tuiy3qtc.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87tuiy3qtc.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 06, 2021, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, Sep 03, 2021, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> >> Jiang Jiasheng <jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn> writes:
> >> 
> >> > The kvm_get_vcpu() will call for the array_index_nospec()
> >> > with the value of atomic_read(&(v->kvm)->online_vcpus) as size,
> >> > and the value of constant '0' as index.
> >> > If the size is also '0', it will be unreasonabe
> >> > that the index is no less than the size.
> >> >
> >> 
> >> Can this really happen?
> >> 
> >> 'online_vcpus' is never decreased, it is increased with every
> >> kvm_vm_ioctl_create_vcpu() call when a new vCPU is created and is set to
> >> 0 when all vCPUs are destroyed (kvm_free_vcpus()).
> >> 
> >> kvm_guest_time_update() takes a vcpu as a parameter, this means that at
> >> least 1 vCPU is currently present so 'online_vcpus' just can't be zero.
> >
> > Agreed, but doing kvm_get_vcpu() is ugly and overkill.
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > index 86539c1686fa..cc1cb9a401cd 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > @@ -2969,7 +2969,7 @@ static int kvm_guest_time_update(struct kvm_vcpu *v)
> >                                        offsetof(struct compat_vcpu_info, time));
> >         if (vcpu->xen.vcpu_time_info_set)
> >                 kvm_setup_pvclock_page(v, &vcpu->xen.vcpu_time_info_cache, 0);
> > -       if (v == kvm_get_vcpu(v->kvm, 0))
> > +       if (!kvm_vcpu_get_idx(v))
> 
> Do we really need to keep kvm_vcpu_get_idx() around though? It has only
> 3 users, all in arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.[ch], and the inline simpy returns
> 'vcpu->vcpu_idx'.

Nope, looks like it's a holdover from before the introduction of vcpu_idx.  I'll
send a small series to jettison the wrapper and make the above change.

Thanks!