From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9112EC433F5 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 21:50:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.11.253]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02E1E610F8 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 21:50:24 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 02E1E610F8 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8250B4B090; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 17:50:24 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Authentication-Results: mm01.cs.columbia.edu (amavisd-new); dkim=softfail (fail, message has been altered) header.i=@google.com Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u8y1+4FhdS9s; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 17:50:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AB3D4B0C2; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 17:50:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1A014B0A0 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 17:50:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k6c-5VjV9tST for ; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 17:50:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail-pg1-f171.google.com (mail-pg1-f171.google.com [209.85.215.171]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 927054B090 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 17:50:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pg1-f171.google.com with SMTP id r2so4017807pgl.10 for ; Wed, 08 Sep 2021 14:50:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=Mpyy4auQpAVXPHkb/Qt9jfSIDOOiq0JFvfG5mQuouHk=; b=A2IVXrHWAam/jbYtd09fnokjevxMx7ZpbOvIT68k4TqNRvIh/8wukp0MGqbRJy+a5n BFC6hV4Ld87OIsLiIJ447d4fFHTDeMekke1ahzsmqcjhlubjLr4vdb6rFQ2jZ1DqUpxR 0zYlu3UzQD9S7PiO3sY2pwgW6ZJPS7cidIhj45+ELubarexN1oSf8QCMLuEAJ8zpDBs5 QFLoXDdj/JIE2J56GwPPsBxU/GQtetWPnmL9Y9i70xe3kzV+5CQFS686bp52iH4zpivK 61MDJsx3oOLTOWtt71s5L+Sswup0lwv30hTeazg9+u4E72AsSgQsBScRdXLqAoK6L8aP SuDQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=Mpyy4auQpAVXPHkb/Qt9jfSIDOOiq0JFvfG5mQuouHk=; b=OYJivQ13wFoUe9huav5/7R6EJ8pZsIj1SQoDrk+sHFzwzR8feCOLumE28W4MmlyD05 4heMnmRW465yJOxeX9g+Kyq4SYG86Z4BTHrcpXcEObSRoFbMClpN55wK6E2F7mpQteRk 8+IWUkECa/e2NXUV/pJTuylN/a1OdicxnQIfuLHhs68pEJgIjjtXqnq/t0n71MUnQROU YjIU4rgcq6uRBtGH1dCho7WRAv6jjsVJulw2awdapwAD5Mai2uZHyi8AcaxD6nOU4g9s ZrdgX0uFvJEcKdqJRDl0eERZBXrvvQdWApq7YgbsoHxMZmOX6FBrzPhhoE2FseOmzzmk H+cg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5331ZgFhu9q2K3rZRXA6i0aiJEw2x1hkkwEsw008hQXqb2dDg+07 iUKiwF0646dTKifbUdp7V+zhmQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzRyUcE2S9uzNLkmd1EozoX+VZL0gSRHBDl1S+xIMkCCLxFIXjwGIL8REirGCUlmuZlSiZe7Q== X-Received: by 2002:a63:374f:: with SMTP id g15mr284346pgn.2.1631137820471; Wed, 08 Sep 2021 14:50:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com (150.12.83.34.bc.googleusercontent.com. [34.83.12.150]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h13sm134675pgf.14.2021.09.08.14.50.19 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 08 Sep 2021 14:50:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2021 14:50:16 -0700 From: Ricardo Koller To: Oliver Upton Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: arm64: vgic: check redist region is not above the VM IPA size Message-ID: References: <20210908210320.1182303-1-ricarkol@google.com> <20210908210320.1182303-2-ricarkol@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, maz@kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org, pshier@google.com, Paolo Bonzini , kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu X-BeenThere: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Where KVM/ARM decisions are made List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 09:32:05PM +0000, Oliver Upton wrote: > Hi Ricardo, > > On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 02:03:19PM -0700, Ricardo Koller wrote: > > Extend vgic_v3_check_base() to verify that the redistributor regions > > don't go above the VM-specified IPA size (phys_size). This can happen > > when using the legacy KVM_VGIC_V3_ADDR_TYPE_REDIST attribute with: > > > > base + size > phys_size AND base < phys_size > > > > vgic_v3_check_base() is used to check the redist regions bases when > > setting them (with the vcpus added so far) and when attempting the first > > vcpu-run. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ricardo Koller > > --- > > arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-v3.c | 4 ++++ > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-v3.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-v3.c > > index 66004f61cd83..5afd9f6f68f6 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-v3.c > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-v3.c > > @@ -512,6 +512,10 @@ bool vgic_v3_check_base(struct kvm *kvm) > > if (rdreg->base + vgic_v3_rd_region_size(kvm, rdreg) < > > rdreg->base) > > return false; > > Can we drop this check in favor of explicitly comparing rdreg->base with > kvm_phys_size()? I believe that would be more readable. > You mean the integer overflow check above? in that case, I would prefer to leave it, if you don't mind. It seems that this type of check is used in some other places in KVM (like kvm_assign_ioeventfd and vgic_v3_alloc_redist_region). > > + > > + if (rdreg->base + vgic_v3_rd_region_size(kvm, rdreg) > > > + kvm_phys_size(kvm)) > > + return false; > > } > > > > if (IS_VGIC_ADDR_UNDEF(d->vgic_dist_base)) > > -- > > 2.33.0.153.gba50c8fa24-goog > > > > -- > Thanks, > Oliver _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm