Re: [PATCH 0/2] KVM: fixes for the kernel-hardening tree

[David Hildenbrand]

On 23.10.2017 16:15, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 23/10/2017 14:39, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:52:51 +0200
>> David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21.10.2017 01:25, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>> Two KVM ioctls (KVM_GET/SET_CPUID2) directly access the cpuid_entries
>>>> field of struct kvm_vcpu_arch.  Therefore, the new usercopy hardening
>>>> work in linux-next, which forbids copies from and to slab objects
>>>> unless they are from kmalloc or explicitly whitelisted, breaks KVM
>>>> completely.
>>>>
>>>> This series fixes it by adding the two new usercopy arguments
>>>> to kvm_init (more precisely to a new function kvm_init_usercopy,
>>>> while kvm_init passes zeroes as a default).
>>>>
>>>> There's also another broken ioctl, KVM_XEN_HVM_CONFIG, but it is
>>>> obsolete and not a big deal at all.
>>>>
>>>> I'm Ccing all submaintainers in case they have something similar
>>>> going on in their kvm_arch and kvm_vcpu_arch structs.  KVM has a
>>>> pretty complex userspace API, so thorough with linux-next is highly
>>>> recommended.  
>>>
>>> I assume on s390x, at least
>>>
>>> kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_get_one_reg() and
>>> kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_set_one_reg()
>>>
>>> have to be fixed.
>>
>> At a glance, seems like it.
>>
>>>
>>> Christian, are you already looking into this?
>>
>> I'm afraid I'm also busy with travel preparation/travel, so I'd be glad
>> for any takers.
> 
> Let's do a generic fix now, so that we don't need to rush the switch to
> explicit whitelisting.

You mean a arch specific fix (allow writes/reads to arch) or even more
generic?

Otherwise I can you send a patch to fix these two functions.

> 
> Paolo
> 


-- 

Thanks,

David