Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Message-ID: <3ec91f7a-10ca-b984-d852-1327f965b1e8@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Feb 2022 11:08:48 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.5.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/11] KVM: s390: Add optional storage key checking to
 MEMOP IOCTL
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
References: <20220207165930.1608621-1-scgl@linux.ibm.com>
 <20220207165930.1608621-6-scgl@linux.ibm.com>
 <48d1678f-746c-dab6-5ec3-56397277f752@linux.ibm.com>
 <71f07914-d0b2-e98b-22b2-bc05f04df2da@linux.ibm.com>
 <6ea27647-fbbe-3962-03a0-8ca5340fc7fd@linux.ibm.com>
 <8d502356c3a624847c0dd2fe5d5f60e72923a141.camel@linux.ibm.com>
From:   Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <8d502356c3a624847c0dd2fe5d5f60e72923a141.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


Am 09.02.22 um 11:01 schrieb Janis Schoetterl-Glausch:
> On Wed, 2022-02-09 at 10:08 +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>
>> Am 09.02.22 um 09:49 schrieb Janis Schoetterl-Glausch:
>>> On 2/9/22 08:34, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>> Am 07.02.22 um 17:59 schrieb Janis Schoetterl-Glausch:
>>>>> User space needs a mechanism to perform key checked accesses when
>>>>> emulating instructions.
>>>>>
>>>>> The key can be passed as an additional argument.
>>>>> Having an additional argument is flexible, as user space can
>>>>> pass the guest PSW's key, in order to make an access the same way the
>>>>> CPU would, or pass another key if necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>
>>>>> Acked-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>     arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>>>>>     include/uapi/linux/kvm.h |  8 +++++--
>>>>>     2 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>>>>> index cf347e1a4f17..71e61fb3f0d9 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>>>>> @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@
>>>>>     #include <linux/sched/signal.h>
>>>>>     #include <linux/string.h>
>>>>>     #include <linux/pgtable.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/bitfield.h>
>>>>>       #include <asm/asm-offsets.h>
>>>>>     #include <asm/lowcore.h>
>>>>> @@ -2359,6 +2360,11 @@ static int kvm_s390_handle_pv(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_pv_cmd *cmd)
>>>>>         return r;
>>>>>     }
>>>>>     +static bool access_key_invalid(u8 access_key)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    return access_key > 0xf;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>>     long kvm_arch_vm_ioctl(struct file *filp,
>>>>>                    unsigned int ioctl, unsigned long arg)
>>>>>     {
>>>>> @@ -4687,34 +4693,54 @@ static long kvm_s390_guest_mem_op(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>>>>                       struct kvm_s390_mem_op *mop)
>>>>>     {
>>>>>         void __user *uaddr = (void __user *)mop->buf;
>>>>> +    u8 access_key = 0, ar = 0;
>>>>>         void *tmpbuf = NULL;
>>>>> +    bool check_reserved;
>>>>>         int r = 0;
>>>>>         const u64 supported_flags = KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_INJECT_EXCEPTION
>>>>> -                    | KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CHECK_ONLY;
>>>>> +                    | KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CHECK_ONLY
>>>>> +                    | KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_SKEY_PROTECTION;
>>>>>     -    if (mop->flags & ~supported_flags || mop->ar >= NUM_ACRS || !mop->size)
>>>>> +    if (mop->flags & ~supported_flags || !mop->size)
>>>>>             return -EINVAL;
>>>>> -
>>>>>         if (mop->size > MEM_OP_MAX_SIZE)
>>>>>             return -E2BIG;
>>>>> -
>>>>>         if (kvm_s390_pv_cpu_is_protected(vcpu))
>>>>>             return -EINVAL;
>>>>> -
>>>>>         if (!(mop->flags & KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CHECK_ONLY)) {
>>>>>             tmpbuf = vmalloc(mop->size);
>>>>>             if (!tmpbuf)
>>>>>                 return -ENOMEM;
>>>>>         }
>>>>> +    ar = mop->ar;
>>>>> +    mop->ar = 0;
>>>>
>>>> Why this assignment to 0?
>>>
>>> It's so the check of reserved below works like that, they're all part of the anonymous union.
>>
>> Ah, I see. This is ugly :-)
> 
> Yes :)
>>
>>>>> +    if (ar >= NUM_ACRS)
>>>>> +        return -EINVAL;
>>>>> +    if (mop->flags & KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_SKEY_PROTECTION) {
>>>>> +        access_key = mop->key;
>>>>> +        mop->key = 0;
>>>>
>>>> and this? I think we can leave mop unchanged.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, why do we add the ar and access_key variable?
>>>> This breaks the check from above (if (mop->flags & ~supported_flags || mop->ar >= NUM_ACRS || !mop->size))  into two checks
>>>> and it will create a memleak for tmpbuf.
>>>
>>> I can move the allocation down, goto out or get rid of the reserved check and keep everything as before.
>>> First is simpler, but second makes handling that case more explicit and might help in the future.
>>
>> Maybe add a reserved_02 field in the anon struct and check this for being zero and get rid of the local variables?
> 
> I think that would require us adding new fields in the struct by putting them in a union with reserved_02 and so on,
> which could get rather messy.

I think it is fine to rename reserved_02. Maybe rename that to dont_use_02 ?
> 
> Maybe a comment is good enought?
>>
>>> Patch 6 has the same issue in the vm ioctl handler.
>>>> Simply use mop->key and mop->ar below and get rid of the local variables.
>>>> The structure has no concurrency and gcc will handle that just as the local variable.
>>>>
>>>> Other than that this looks good.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>