On Wed, 2015-11-25 at 12:31 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 24/11/2015 23:33, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > 3.2.74-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> >
> > ------------------
> >
> > From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > commit cbdb967af3d54993f5814f1cee0ed311a055377d upstream.
> >
> > This is needed to avoid the possibility that the guest triggers
> > an infinite stream of #DB exceptions (CVE-2015-8104).
> >
> > VMX is not affected: because it does not save DR6 in the VMCS,
> > it already intercepts #DB unconditionally.
> >
> > Reported-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > [bwh: Backported to 3.2: #DB and #BP did not share a function, and there is
> > no operation pointer referring to it, so remove update_db_intercept()
> > entirely]
>
> This is wrong, you still need to check the BP intercept in the
> (incorrectly named as of 3.2) update_db_intercept function.
>
> Something like:
>
> -static void update_db_intercept(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +static void update_bp_intercept(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> > > struct vcpu_svm *svm = to_svm(vcpu);
>
> -> > clr_exception_intercept(svm, DB_VECTOR);
> > > clr_exception_intercept(svm, BP_VECTOR);
> -
> -> > if (svm->nmi_singlestep)
> -> > > set_exception_intercept(svm, DB_VECTOR);
> -
> > > if (vcpu->guest_debug & KVM_GUESTDBG_ENABLE) {
> -> > > if (vcpu->guest_debug &
> -> > > (KVM_GUESTDBG_SINGLESTEP | KVM_GUESTDBG_USE_HW_BP))
> -> > > > set_exception_intercept(svm, DB_VECTOR);
> > > > if (vcpu->guest_debug & KVM_GUESTDBG_USE_SW_BP)
> > > > > set_exception_intercept(svm, BP_VECTOR);
> > > } else
> > > vcpu->guest_debug = 0;
> }
>
>
> Then the calls in db_interception and enable_nmi_window can be removed,
> but the one in svm_guest_debug is important.
Sorry about that. I now have with this version:
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 09:14:39 +0100
Subject: KVM: svm: unconditionally intercept #DB
commit cbdb967af3d54993f5814f1cee0ed311a055377d upstream.
This is needed to avoid the possibility that the guest triggers
an infinite stream of #DB exceptions (CVE-2015-8104).
VMX is not affected: because it does not save DR6 in the VMCS,
it already intercepts #DB unconditionally.
Reported-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
[bwh: Backported to 3.2, with thanks to Paolo:
- update_db_bp_intercept() was called update_db_intercept()
- The remaining call is in svm_guest_debug() rather than through svm_x86_ops]
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/x86/kvm/svm.c | 14 +++-----------
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c
@@ -1015,6 +1015,7 @@ static void init_vmcb(struct vcpu_svm *s
set_exception_intercept(svm, UD_VECTOR);
set_exception_intercept(svm, MC_VECTOR);
set_exception_intercept(svm, AC_VECTOR);
+ set_exception_intercept(svm, DB_VECTOR);
set_intercept(svm, INTERCEPT_INTR);
set_intercept(svm, INTERCEPT_NMI);
@@ -1550,20 +1551,13 @@ static void svm_set_segment(struct kvm_v
mark_dirty(svm->vmcb, VMCB_SEG);
}
-static void update_db_intercept(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+static void update_bp_intercept(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
struct vcpu_svm *svm = to_svm(vcpu);
- clr_exception_intercept(svm, DB_VECTOR);
clr_exception_intercept(svm, BP_VECTOR);
- if (svm->nmi_singlestep)
- set_exception_intercept(svm, DB_VECTOR);
-
if (vcpu->guest_debug & KVM_GUESTDBG_ENABLE) {
- if (vcpu->guest_debug &
- (KVM_GUESTDBG_SINGLESTEP | KVM_GUESTDBG_USE_HW_BP))
- set_exception_intercept(svm, DB_VECTOR);
if (vcpu->guest_debug & KVM_GUESTDBG_USE_SW_BP)
set_exception_intercept(svm, BP_VECTOR);
} else
@@ -1581,7 +1575,7 @@ static void svm_guest_debug(struct kvm_v
mark_dirty(svm->vmcb, VMCB_DR);
- update_db_intercept(vcpu);
+ update_bp_intercept(vcpu);
}
static void new_asid(struct vcpu_svm *svm, struct svm_cpu_data *sd)
@@ -1655,7 +1649,6 @@ static int db_interception(struct vcpu_s
if (!(svm->vcpu.guest_debug & KVM_GUESTDBG_SINGLESTEP))
svm->vmcb->save.rflags &=
~(X86_EFLAGS_TF | X86_EFLAGS_RF);
- update_db_intercept(&svm->vcpu);
}
if (svm->vcpu.guest_debug &
@@ -3557,7 +3550,6 @@ static void enable_nmi_window(struct kvm
*/
svm->nmi_singlestep = true;
svm->vmcb->save.rflags |= (X86_EFLAGS_TF | X86_EFLAGS_RF);
- update_db_intercept(vcpu);
}
static int svm_set_tss_addr(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned int addr)
--
Ben Hutchings
This sentence contradicts itself - no actually it doesn't.Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part