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 18F94C433EF for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 03:20:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.11.253]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62E8A6113E for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 03:20:54 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 62E8A6113E 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 D40774B0C2; Mon, 13 Sep 2021 23:20:53 -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 F5UXB3kTx2Uw; Mon, 13 Sep 2021 23:20:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BE624B187; Mon, 13 Sep 2021 23:20:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EB554B0C2 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2021 23:20:51 -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 u3ZQJt24Cpu3 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2021 23:20:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail-pg1-f181.google.com (mail-pg1-f181.google.com [209.85.215.181]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39432401A2 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2021 23:20:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pg1-f181.google.com with SMTP id g184so11373860pgc.6 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2021 20:20:50 -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:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=pUjEFPKNx1O9WzlN4Kw5jO3Lwl0ZxDuARimA6uJp1m0=; b=g2CNxhF0mDFL+5WB2rhy2fUthXDWMK4oFBPJ/CTC7ECkycYskSddAsVq8J5eVMhXIz alsmIoruq3w5FQ9gvwE8cR8cItAo4gWvXnSjmHRsLG1DrBGx2Qku8jBYHYwhs5mRKJts KFiNTmZhTOXgWQ0btiR6v8P8GGz5Dj1G6q8AUAqSzp9AON90DG8hjDD+MaKskJKwDm/8 QZBEMRDKwroS/VD87J3Tk8VTKjek22vdtmMO2C3hqpoa0xqczKiw4o2K8H/uX0BnTm6o O30mAvnGcN5FnrNM8IaVCWcUjcyGtnh4Ljr1R5vNkC/h5NsDRyKpy/MGY8E+0awerJap b1og== 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:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; bh=pUjEFPKNx1O9WzlN4Kw5jO3Lwl0ZxDuARimA6uJp1m0=; b=DyFU0tRJeEt4R9i7e00Y+0jimDXPNweW8RoSKrfvcY9owRhx06mQ+4Eg4NtzKVaity UDnUsMW3wkn/piM3VV+IzQ+5c6P5yBtaFJH3Ua8U8yimhHLulX2lWbpCiOFbDECgrjyx Uf9MfUE0fvLT4LfA0vRwEU+iSqPQ5ON+QwN0InEOl4nwhjnz0SR8zSi927JulrIZKZxh eKv3gU7NGScrWDj/3mz3HF9GYMjoyDKnotdy6XB6yn10kBnmLS+ajhTJYzbLZHJeLzmI J/JQcoNjp8seUzheVxRKCWxkF+RF3ZjfAV/pIyTaaZ9gblRcs+ApZQ6RivOxTHAJGxsc preg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531Z7o9W3WtDZD6/8cs2MsA8Xwy1wRm+omCPMLEyVla5sqZot6Si 5EmIkbacqTVPAuocxUtD0AxT+Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwiJ3D2WvPMeBUyHqVRvyWDRMXgUJoPNHGaY5arhbRTW9Ek+/U6cSANzpykRzS4BHwBP3/8bw== X-Received: by 2002:a63:1717:: with SMTP id x23mr13795189pgl.182.1631589649074; Mon, 13 Sep 2021 20:20:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com (150.12.83.34.bc.googleusercontent.com. [34.83.12.150]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z14sm5799380pfr.154.2021.09.13.20.20.48 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 13 Sep 2021 20:20:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 20:20:45 -0700 From: Ricardo Koller To: Alexandru Elisei 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> <5eb41efd-2ff2-d25b-5801-f4a56457a09f@arm.com> <80bdbdb3-1bff-aa99-c49b-76d6bd960aa9@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, maz@kernel.org, pshier@google.com, Paolo Bonzini , shuah@kernel.org, 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="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Hi Alexandru, Eric, On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 11:15:33AM +0100, Alexandru Elisei wrote: > Hi Eric, Ricardo, > = > On 9/10/21 20:32, Ricardo Koller wrote: > > Hi Alexandru and Eric, > > > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 10:42:23AM +0200, Eric Auger wrote: > >> Hi Alexandru, > >> > >> On 9/10/21 10:28 AM, Alexandru Elisei wrote: > >>> Hi Ricardo, > >>> > >>> On 9/9/21 5:47 PM, Ricardo Koller wrote: > >>>> On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 11:20:15AM +0100, Alexandru Elisei wrote: > >>>>> Hi Ricardo, > >>>>> > >>>>> On 9/8/21 10:03 PM, Ricardo Koller wrote: > >>>>>> Extend vgic_v3_check_base() to verify that the redistributor regio= ns > >>>>>> don't go above the VM-specified IPA size (phys_size). This can hap= pen > >>>>>> 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/v= gic-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; > >>>>>> + > >>>>>> + if (rdreg->base + vgic_v3_rd_region_size(kvm, rdreg) > > >>>>>> + kvm_phys_size(kvm)) > >>>>>> + return false; > >>>>> Looks to me like this same check (and the overflow one before it) i= s done when > >>>>> adding a new Redistributor region in kvm_vgic_addr() -> vgic_v3_set= _redist_base() > >>>>> -> vgic_v3_alloc_redist_region() -> vgic_check_ioaddr(). As far as = I can tell, > >>>>> kvm_vgic_addr() handles both ways of setting the Redistributor addr= ess. > >>>>> > >>>>> Without this patch, did you manage to set a base address such that = base + size > > >>>>> kvm_phys_size()? > >>>>> > >>>> Yes, with the KVM_VGIC_V3_ADDR_TYPE_REDIST legacy API. The easiest w= ay > >>>> to get to this situation is with the selftest in patch 2. I then tr= ied > >>>> an extra experiment: map the first redistributor, run the first vcpu, > >>>> and access the redist from inside the guest. KVM didn't complain in = any > >>>> of these steps. > >>> Yes, Eric pointed out that I was mistaken and there is no check being= done for > >>> base + size > kvm_phys_size(). > >>> > >>> What I was trying to say is that this check is better done when the u= ser creates a > >>> Redistributor region, not when a VCPU is first run. We have everythin= g we need to > >>> make the check when a region is created, why wait until the VCPU is r= un? > >>> > >>> For example, vgic_v3_insert_redist_region() is called each time the a= dds a new > >>> Redistributor region (via either of the two APIs), and already has a = check for the > >>> upper limit overflowing (identical to the check in vgic_v3_check_base= ()). I would > >>> add the check against the maximum IPA size there. > >> you seem to refer to an old kernel as vgic_v3_insert_redist_region was > >> renamed into=EF=BF=BD vgic_v3_alloc_redist_region in > >> e5a35635464b kvm: arm64: vgic-v3: Introduce vgic_v3_free_redist_region= () > >> > >> I think in case you use the old rdist API you do not know yet the size > >> of the redist region at this point (count=3D0), hence Ricardo's choice= to > >> do the check latter. > > Just wanted to add one more detail. vgic_v3_check_base() is also called > > when creating the redistributor region (via vgic_v3_set_redist_base -> > > vgic_register_redist_iodev). This patch reuses that check for the old > > redist API to also check for "base + size > kvm_phys_size()" with a size > > calculated using the vcpus added so far. > = > @Eric: Indeed I was looking at an older kernel by mistake, thank you for = pointing > that out! > = > Thank you both for the explanations, the piece I was missing was the fact= that > KVM_VGIC_V3_ADDR_TYPE_REDIST specifies only the base address and the limi= t for the > region is the number of VCPUs * (KVM_VGIC_V3_REDIST_SIZE =3D 128K), which= makes it > necessary to have the check when each VCPU is first run (as far as I can = tell, > VCPUs can be created at any time). > = > > > >>> Also, because vgic_v3_insert_redist_region() already checks for overf= low, I > >>> believe the overflow check in vgic_v3_check_base() is redundant. > >>> > > It's redundant for the new redist API, but still needed for the old > > redist API. > = > Indeed. > = > > > >>> As far as I can tell, vgic_v3_check_base() is there to make sure that= the > >>> Distributor doesn't overlap with any of the Redistributors, and becau= se the > >>> Redistributors and the Distributor can be created in any order, we de= fer the check > >>> until the first VCPU is run. I might be wrong about this, someone ple= ase correct > >>> me if I'm wrong. > >>> > >>> Also, did you verify that KVM is also doing this check for GICv2? KVM= does > >>> something similar and calls vgic_v2_check_base() when mapping the GIC= resources, > >>> and I don't see a check for the maximum IPA size in that function eit= her. > >> I think vgic_check_ioaddr() called in kvm_vgic_addr() does the job (it > >> checks the base @) > >> > > It seems that GICv2 suffers from the same problem. The cpu interface > > base is checked but the end can extend above IPA size. Note that the cpu > > interface is 8KBs and vgic_check_ioaddr() is only checking that its base > = > ... except that the doc for KVM_VGIC_V2_ADDR_TYPE_CPU says that the CPU i= nterface > region is 4K, while the check in vgic_v2_check_base() is done against > KVM_VGIC_V2_CPU_SIZE, which is 8K. The "GIC virtual CPU interface" alone is slightly more than 4K: GICV_DIR is at 0x1000. The documentation might need to be updated. > I suppose that the CPU interface region is 8K > because ARM IHI 0048B.b strongly recommends that the virtual CPU interfac= e control > registers are in a separate 4KB region, and KVM wants to emulate a GICv2 = as close > to the real thing as possible? Are the "virtual CPU interface control" registers the ones starting with GICH_? If yes, then I'm a bit confused, as those are not exposed to the guest (to my knowledge). > = > > is 4KB aligned and below IPA size. The distributor region is 4KB so > > vgic_check_ioaddr() is enough in that case. > > > > What about the following? > > > > I can work on the next version of this patch (v2 has the GICv2 issue) > > which adds vgic_check_range(), which is like vgic_check_ioaddr() but > > with a size arg. kvm_vgic_addr() can then call vgic_check_range() and > > do all the checks for GICv2 and GICv3. Note that for GICv2, there's no > > need to wait until first vcpu run to do the check. Also note that I will > > have to keep the change in vgic_v3_check_base() to check for the old v3 > > redist API at first vcpu run. > = > Sounds good. > = > Thanks, > = > Alex > = > > > > Thanks, > > Ricardo > > > >> Thanks > >> > >> Eric Will do, thank you both. Ricardo > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> Alex > >>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Ricardo > >>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> > >>>>> Alex > >>>>> > >>>>>> } > >>>>>> = > >>>>>> if (IS_VGIC_ADDR_UNDEF(d->vgic_dist_base)) _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm