Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <2d10ff16d3f5fa03886721c24f2db10d79759ed2.camel@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86/mmu: Do not create SPTEs for GFNs that exceed
 host.MAXPHYADDR
From:   Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>,
        Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>,
        David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 02 May 2022 23:12:52 +1200
In-Reply-To: <20220428233416.2446833-1-seanjc@google.com>
References: <20220428233416.2446833-1-seanjc@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.42.4 (3.42.4-1.fc35) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 2022-04-28 at 23:34 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> index 904f0faff218..c10ae25135e3 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> @@ -3010,9 +3010,15 @@ static bool handle_abnormal_pfn(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_page_fault *fa
>  		/*
>  		 * If MMIO caching is disabled, emulate immediately without
>  		 * touching the shadow page tables as attempting to install an
> -		 * MMIO SPTE will just be an expensive nop.
> +		 * MMIO SPTE will just be an expensive nop.  Do not cache MMIO
> +		 * whose gfn is greater than host.MAXPHYADDR, any guest that
> +		 * generates such gfns is either malicious or in the weeds.
> +		 * Note, it's possible to observe a gfn > host.MAXPHYADDR if
> +		 * and only if host.MAXPHYADDR is inaccurate with respect to
> +		 * hardware behavior, e.g. if KVM itself is running as a VM.
>  		 */
> -		if (unlikely(!enable_mmio_caching)) {
> +		if (unlikely(!enable_mmio_caching) ||
> +		    unlikely(fault->gfn > kvm_mmu_max_gfn_host())) {

Shouldn't we check fault->gfn against cpuid_maxphyaddr(vcpu) instead of
kvm_mmu_max_gfn_host() here?

>  			*ret_val = RET_PF_EMULATE;
>  			return true;
>  		}


-- 
Thanks,
-Kai