On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 17:29:16 +0200
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2016-04-21 13:29+0200, Greg Kurz:
> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 20:29:09 +0200
> > Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> 2016-04-20 17:44+0200, Greg Kurz:
> >> > Commit 338c7dbadd26 ("KVM: Improve create VCPU parameter (CVE-2013-4587)")
> >> > introduced a check to prevent potential kernel memory corruption in case
> >> > the vcpu id is too great.
> >> >
> >> > Unfortunately this check assumes vcpu ids grow in sequence with a common
> >> > difference of 1, which is wrong: archs are free to use vcpu id as they fit.
> >> > For example, QEMU originated vcpu ids for PowerPC cpus running in boot3s_hv
> >> > mode, can grow with a common difference of 2, 4 or 8: if KVM_MAX_VCPUS is
> >> > 1024, guests may be limited down to 128 vcpus on POWER8.
> >> >
> >> > This means the check does not belong here and should be moved to some arch
> >> > specific function: kvm_arch_vcpu_create() looks like a good candidate.
> >> >
> >> > ARM and s390 already have such a check.
> >> >
> >> > I could not spot any path in the PowerPC or common KVM code where a vcpu
> >> > id is used as described in the above commit: I believe PowerPC can live
> >> > without this check.
> >>
> >> The only problematic path I see is kvm_get_vcpu_by_id(), which returns
> >> NULL for any id above KVM_MAX_VCPUS.
> >
> > Oops my bad, I started to work on a 4.4 tree and I missed this check brought
> > by commit c896939f7cff (KVM: use heuristic for fast VCPU lookup by id).
> >
> > But again, I believe the check is wrong there also: the changelog just mentions
> > this is a fastpath for the usual case where "VCPU ids match the array index"...
> > why does the patch add a NULL return path if id >= KVM_MAX_VCPUS ?
>
> (The patch had to check id >= KVM_MAX_VCPUS for sanity and there could
> not be a VCPU with that index according to the spec, so it made a
> shortcut to the correct NULL result ...)
>
With the spec in mind, you're right... the confusion comes from the fact
that powerpc decided to use bigger vcpu ids a long time ago but nobody
cared to document that.
> >> Second issue is that Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt says
> >> 4.7 KVM_CREATE_VCPU
> >> [...]
> >> This API adds a vcpu to a virtual machine. The vcpu id is a small
> >> integer in the range [0, max_vcpus).
> >>
> >
> > Yeah and I find the meaning of max_vcpus is unclear.
> >
> > Here it is considered as a limit for vcpu id, but if you look at the code,
> > KVM_MAX_VCPUS is also used as a limit for the number of vcpus:
> >
> > virt/kvm/kvm_main.c: if (atomic_read(&kvm->online_vcpus) == KVM_MAX_VCPUS) {
>
> I agree. Naming of KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS and KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS would make
> you think that online_vcpus limit interpretation is the correct one, but
> the code is conflicted.
>
> >> so we'd remove those two lines and change the API too. The change would
> >> be somewhat backward compatible, but doesn't PowerPC use high vcpu_id
> >> just because KVM is lacking an API to set DT ID?
> >
> > This is related to a limitation when running in book3s_hv mode with cpus
> > that support SMT (multiple HW threads): all HW threads within a core
> > cannot be running in different guests at the same time.
> >
> > We solve this by using a vcpu numbering scheme as follows:
> >
> > vcpu_id[N] = (N * thread_per_core_guest) / threads_per_core_host + N % threads_per_core_guest
> >
> > where N means "the Nth vcpu presented to the guest". This allows to have groups of vcpus
> > that can be scheduled to run on the same real core.
> >
> > So, in the "worst" case where we want to run a guest with 1 thread/core and the host
> > has 8 threads/core, we will need the vcpu_id limit to be 8*KVM_MAX_VCPUS.
>
> I see, thanks. Accommodating existing users seems like an acceptable
> excuse to change the API.
>
> >> x86 (APIC ID) is affected by this and ARM (MP ID) probably too.
> >>
> >
> > x86 is limited to KVM_MAX_VCPUS (== 255) vcpus: it won't be affected if we also
> > patch kvm_get_vcpu_by_id() like suggested above.
>
> x86 vcpu_id encodes APIC ID and APIC ID encodes CPU topology by
> reserving blocks of bits for socket/core/thread, so if core or thread
> count isn't a power of two, then the set of valid APIC IDs is sparse,
> but max id is still limited by 255, so the effective maximum VCPU count
> is lower.
>
> x86 doesn't support APIC ID over 255 yet, though, so this change
> wouldn't change a thing in practice. :)
>
Thanks for the details !
So we're good ? Whose tree can carry these patches ?
Cheers.
--
Greg
