| Message ID | 1510866802-26608-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 09:13:22PM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote: > There are two bugs in process_vcpu_msrs() which clearly demonstrate that I > didn't test this bit of Migration v2 very well when writing it... > > vcpu->msrsz is always expected to be a multiple of xen_domctl_vcpu_msr_t > records in a spec-compliant stream, so the modulo yields 0 for the msr_count, > rather than the actual number sent in the stream. > > Passing 0 for the msr_count causes the hypercall to exit early, and hides the > fact that the guest handle is inserted into the wrong field in the domctl > union. > > The reason that these bugs have gone unnoticed for so long is that the only > MSRs passed like this for PV guests are the AMD DBGEXT MSRs, which only exist > in fairly modern hardware, and whose use doesn't appear to be implemented in > any contemporary PV guests. > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> Reviewed-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
>>> On 16.11.17 at 22:13, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote: > There are two bugs in process_vcpu_msrs() which clearly demonstrate that I > didn't test this bit of Migration v2 very well when writing it... > > vcpu->msrsz is always expected to be a multiple of xen_domctl_vcpu_msr_t > records in a spec-compliant stream, so the modulo yields 0 for the msr_count, > rather than the actual number sent in the stream. > > Passing 0 for the msr_count causes the hypercall to exit early, and hides the > fact that the guest handle is inserted into the wrong field in the domctl > union. Oops. > The reason that these bugs have gone unnoticed for so long is that the only > MSRs passed like this for PV guests are the AMD DBGEXT MSRs, which only exist > in fairly modern hardware, and whose use doesn't appear to be implemented in > any contemporary PV guests. > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Hi, On 11/16/2017 09:13 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: > There are two bugs in process_vcpu_msrs() which clearly demonstrate that I > didn't test this bit of Migration v2 very well when writing it... > > vcpu->msrsz is always expected to be a multiple of xen_domctl_vcpu_msr_t > records in a spec-compliant stream, so the modulo yields 0 for the msr_count, > rather than the actual number sent in the stream. > > Passing 0 for the msr_count causes the hypercall to exit early, and hides the > fact that the guest handle is inserted into the wrong field in the domctl > union. > > The reason that these bugs have gone unnoticed for so long is that the only > MSRs passed like this for PV guests are the AMD DBGEXT MSRs, which only exist > in fairly modern hardware, and whose use doesn't appear to be implemented in > any contemporary PV guests. > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> > --- > CC: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> > CC: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> > CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com> > CC: Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com> > > This wants backporting to all stable trees, so should also be considered for > inclusion into 4.10 at this point. Release-acked-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org> Cheers, > --- > tools/libxc/xc_sr_restore_x86_pv.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/libxc/xc_sr_restore_x86_pv.c b/tools/libxc/xc_sr_restore_x86_pv.c > index 50e25c1..ed0fd0e 100644 > --- a/tools/libxc/xc_sr_restore_x86_pv.c > +++ b/tools/libxc/xc_sr_restore_x86_pv.c > @@ -455,8 +455,8 @@ static int process_vcpu_msrs(struct xc_sr_context *ctx, > domctl.cmd = XEN_DOMCTL_set_vcpu_msrs; > domctl.domain = ctx->domid; > domctl.u.vcpu_msrs.vcpu = vcpuid; > - domctl.u.vcpu_msrs.msr_count = vcpu->msrsz % sizeof(xen_domctl_vcpu_msr_t); > - set_xen_guest_handle(domctl.u.vcpuextstate.buffer, buffer); > + domctl.u.vcpu_msrs.msr_count = vcpu->msrsz / sizeof(xen_domctl_vcpu_msr_t); > + set_xen_guest_handle(domctl.u.vcpu_msrs.msrs, buffer); > > memcpy(buffer, vcpu->msr, vcpu->msrsz); > >
diff --git a/tools/libxc/xc_sr_restore_x86_pv.c b/tools/libxc/xc_sr_restore_x86_pv.c index 50e25c1..ed0fd0e 100644 --- a/tools/libxc/xc_sr_restore_x86_pv.c +++ b/tools/libxc/xc_sr_restore_x86_pv.c @@ -455,8 +455,8 @@ static int process_vcpu_msrs(struct xc_sr_context *ctx, domctl.cmd = XEN_DOMCTL_set_vcpu_msrs; domctl.domain = ctx->domid; domctl.u.vcpu_msrs.vcpu = vcpuid; - domctl.u.vcpu_msrs.msr_count = vcpu->msrsz % sizeof(xen_domctl_vcpu_msr_t); - set_xen_guest_handle(domctl.u.vcpuextstate.buffer, buffer); + domctl.u.vcpu_msrs.msr_count = vcpu->msrsz / sizeof(xen_domctl_vcpu_msr_t); + set_xen_guest_handle(domctl.u.vcpu_msrs.msrs, buffer); memcpy(buffer, vcpu->msr, vcpu->msrsz);
There are two bugs in process_vcpu_msrs() which clearly demonstrate that I didn't test this bit of Migration v2 very well when writing it... vcpu->msrsz is always expected to be a multiple of xen_domctl_vcpu_msr_t records in a spec-compliant stream, so the modulo yields 0 for the msr_count, rather than the actual number sent in the stream. Passing 0 for the msr_count causes the hypercall to exit early, and hides the fact that the guest handle is inserted into the wrong field in the domctl union. The reason that these bugs have gone unnoticed for so long is that the only MSRs passed like this for PV guests are the AMD DBGEXT MSRs, which only exist in fairly modern hardware, and whose use doesn't appear to be implemented in any contemporary PV guests. Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> --- CC: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> CC: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com> CC: Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com> This wants backporting to all stable trees, so should also be considered for inclusion into 4.10 at this point. --- tools/libxc/xc_sr_restore_x86_pv.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)