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;
Date:   Thu, 30 Mar 2023 13:36:48 -0700
In-Reply-To: <4c5f4f61-a8d1-a707-8100-e095d3b18398@grsecurity.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <20230322013731.102955-1-minipli@grsecurity.net>
 <20230322013731.102955-7-minipli@grsecurity.net> <677169b4-051f-fcae-756b-9a3e1bb9f8fe@grsecurity.net>
 <ZCXDAiUOnsL3fRBj@google.com> <ea3a8fbc-2bf8-7442-e498-3e5818384c83@grsecurity.net>
 <4c5f4f61-a8d1-a707-8100-e095d3b18398@grsecurity.net>
Message-ID: <ZCXy4C+eauDBgk37@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] KVM: VMX: Make CR0.WP a guest owned bit
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Mathias Krause <minipli@grsecurity.net>
Cc:     kvm@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 30, 2023, Mathias Krause wrote:
> On 30.03.23 22:15, Mathias Krause wrote:
> > [...]
> > Maybe it's not a stale CR0 value but the page table walker not taking
> > the guest's CR0.WP into account? Maybe a missing role update?
> 
> Indeed, it is. This does the trick for me:
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> index 31be188aa842..6a9e90725c84 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -8372,6 +8372,9 @@ static void init_emulate_ctxt(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> 
>         init_decode_cache(ctxt);
>         vcpu->arch.emulate_regs_need_sync_from_vcpu = false;
> +       /* Ensure we're doing page table walks with an up2date MMU role */
> +       if ((vcpu->arch.cr0 ^ kvm_read_cr0(vcpu)) == X86_CR0_WP)
> +               kvm_init_mmu(vcpu);
>  }
> 
>  void kvm_inject_realmode_interrupt(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int irq, int inc_eip)
> 
> Very heavy weight and misplaced, but a start :)
> 
> It should (1) be limited to VMX as that's the only one that would make
> CR0.WP a guest owned bit and (2) limited to emulated instructions that
> actually do write operations, as read are harmless, obviously.

For the record, I wrote my email before I saw this ;-)