Message ID | 20240320001542.3203871-1-seanjc@google.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | KVM: Fix for a mostly benign gpc WARN | expand |
On Tue, 2024-03-19 at 17:15 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > Fix a bug found by syzkaller, thanks to a new WARN sanity check, where KVM > marks a gfn_to_pfn_cache as active without actually setting gpc->gpa or any > other metadata. On top, harden against _directly_ setting gpc->gpa to KVM's > magic INVALID_GPA, which would also fail the sanity check. > > Sean Christopherson (3): > KVM: Add helpers to consolidate gfn_to_pfn_cache's page split check > KVM: Check validity of offset+length of gfn_to_pfn_cache prior to > activation > KVM: Explicitly disallow activatating a gfn_to_pfn_cache with > INVALID_GPA It looks like these conflict with https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20240227115648.3104-9-dwmw2@infradead.org/ Want to arrange them to come after it?
On Fri, Mar 22, 2024, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Tue, 2024-03-19 at 17:15 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > Fix a bug found by syzkaller, thanks to a new WARN sanity check, where KVM > > marks a gfn_to_pfn_cache as active without actually setting gpc->gpa or any > > other metadata. On top, harden against _directly_ setting gpc->gpa to KVM's > > magic INVALID_GPA, which would also fail the sanity check. > > > > Sean Christopherson (3): > > KVM: Add helpers to consolidate gfn_to_pfn_cache's page split check > > KVM: Check validity of offset+length of gfn_to_pfn_cache prior to > > activation > > KVM: Explicitly disallow activatating a gfn_to_pfn_cache with > > INVALID_GPA > > It looks like these conflict with > https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20240227115648.3104-9-dwmw2@infradead.org/ > > Want to arrange them to come after it? Very belated, yes. Though by the time you read this, they should be in kvm-x86/next.
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 17:15:39 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > Fix a bug found by syzkaller, thanks to a new WARN sanity check, where KVM > marks a gfn_to_pfn_cache as active without actually setting gpc->gpa or any > other metadata. On top, harden against _directly_ setting gpc->gpa to KVM's > magic INVALID_GPA, which would also fail the sanity check. > > Sean Christopherson (3): > KVM: Add helpers to consolidate gfn_to_pfn_cache's page split check > KVM: Check validity of offset+length of gfn_to_pfn_cache prior to > activation > KVM: Explicitly disallow activatating a gfn_to_pfn_cache with > INVALID_GPA > > [...] Applied to kvm-x86 fixes, thanks! [1/3] KVM: Add helpers to consolidate gfn_to_pfn_cache's page split check https://github.com/kvm-x86/linux/commit/18f06e976925 [2/3] KVM: Check validity of offset+length of gfn_to_pfn_cache prior to activation https://github.com/kvm-x86/linux/commit/5c9ca4ed8908 [3/3] KVM: Explicitly disallow activatating a gfn_to_pfn_cache with INVALID_GPA https://github.com/kvm-x86/linux/commit/fc62a4e8dee2 -- https://github.com/kvm-x86/linux/tree/next
On Mon, 2024-04-08 at 16:21 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024, David Woodhouse wrote: > > On Tue, 2024-03-19 at 17:15 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > Fix a bug found by syzkaller, thanks to a new WARN sanity check, where KVM > > > marks a gfn_to_pfn_cache as active without actually setting gpc->gpa or any > > > other metadata. On top, harden against _directly_ setting gpc->gpa to KVM's > > > magic INVALID_GPA, which would also fail the sanity check. > > > > > > Sean Christopherson (3): > > > KVM: Add helpers to consolidate gfn_to_pfn_cache's page split check > > > KVM: Check validity of offset+length of gfn_to_pfn_cache prior to > > > activation > > > KVM: Explicitly disallow activatating a gfn_to_pfn_cache with > > > INVALID_GPA > > > > It looks like these conflict with > > https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20240227115648.3104-9-dwmw2@infradead.org/ > > > > Want to arrange them to come after it? > > Very belated, yes. Though by the time you read this, they should be in > kvm-x86/next. Did that 'yes' mean 'no'? Because your three patches are in, but you didn't arrange them to come after my 'clean up rwlock abuse' patch, as you seemed to be saying 'yes' to...
On Tue, Apr 09, 2024, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Mon, 2024-04-08 at 16:21 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > On Tue, 2024-03-19 at 17:15 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > > Fix a bug found by syzkaller, thanks to a new WARN sanity check, where KVM > > > > marks a gfn_to_pfn_cache as active without actually setting gpc->gpa or any > > > > other metadata. On top, harden against _directly_ setting gpc->gpa to KVM's > > > > magic INVALID_GPA, which would also fail the sanity check. > > > > > > > > Sean Christopherson (3): > > > > KVM: Add helpers to consolidate gfn_to_pfn_cache's page split check > > > > KVM: Check validity of offset+length of gfn_to_pfn_cache prior to > > > > activation > > > > KVM: Explicitly disallow activatating a gfn_to_pfn_cache with > > > > INVALID_GPA > > > > > > It looks like these conflict with > > > https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20240227115648.3104-9-dwmw2@infradead.org/ > > > > > > Want to arrange them to come after it? > > > > Very belated, yes. Though by the time you read this, they should be in > > kvm-x86/next. > > Did that 'yes' mean 'no'? Because your three patches are in, but you > didn't arrange them to come after my 'clean up rwlock abuse' patch, as > you seemed to be saying 'yes' to... Doh, I misread your question, multiple times. I thought you were asking if I wanted you to arrange your patches after this series. Your series goes on top because I want to land this series in 6.9 to fix the syzkaller splat (which was effectively introduced in 6.9), whereas your patch is 6.10 material.