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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230109160808.3618132-1-pgonda@google.com> <74745684-785e-71b2-288e-91fbcf1b555b@amd.com>
 <CAMkAt6q_E-+VV=KOs9LbDzawirWR7M4xL2pCF9fR2kMuBuFM-A@mail.gmail.com> <d6c2455c-aff5-a135-2610-53dd6b586b59@amd.com>
In-Reply-To: <d6c2455c-aff5-a135-2610-53dd6b586b59@amd.com>
From:   Peter Gonda <pgonda@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 10 Jan 2023 10:20:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMkAt6orqOCrOiy=kjBq=5jnP1CyM=cbaYYaVAZLDnqbRpgUCw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: sev: Fix int overflow in send|recieve_update_data ioctls
To:     Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Cc:     kvm@vger.kernel.org, Andy Nguyen <theflow@google.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 10:16 AM Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/10/23 10:44, Peter Gonda wrote:
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c
> >>> index 273cba809328..9451de72f917 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c
> >>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c
> >>> @@ -1294,7 +1294,7 @@ static int sev_send_update_data(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_sev_cmd *argp)
> >>>
> >>>        /* Check if we are crossing the page boundary */
> >>>        offset = params.guest_uaddr & (PAGE_SIZE - 1);
> >>> -     if ((params.guest_len + offset > PAGE_SIZE))
> >>> +     if (params.guest_len > PAGE_SIZE || (params.guest_len + offset > PAGE_SIZE))
> >>
> >> I see the original if statement had double parentheses, which looks
> >> strange. Should this if (and the one below) be:
> >>
> >>          if (params.guest_len > PAGE_SIZE || (params.guest_len + offset) > PAGE_SIZE)
> >
> > Isn't the order of operations here: '+' and then '>'. So is the patch
> > correct and matches the old conditional? I am fine adding additional
>
> But what was the purpose of them in the old conditional? They weren't
> necessary.
>
> But, yes, that order of operations is correct and those are both before
> '||'. So the extra parentheses around the second condition check are still
> strange then, right?
>
> Given that, then:
>
>         if (params.guest_len > PAGE_SIZE || params.guest_len + offset > PAGE_SIZE)
>
> > () for clarity though.
>
> I do like the look and clarity of the parentheses around the addition.

Sounds good to me. I'll update the V2 in a couple days to wait for any
other comments.

>
> Thanks,
> Tom