Re: [PATCH] KVM: s390: Do not leak kernel stack data in the KVM_S390_INTERRUPT ioctl

[Thomas Huth]

On 12/09/2019 12.47, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12.09.19 11:00, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> When the userspace program runs the KVM_S390_INTERRUPT ioctl to inject
>> an interrupt, we convert them from the legacy struct kvm_s390_interrupt
>> to the new struct kvm_s390_irq via the s390int_to_s390irq() function.
>> However, this function does not take care of all types of interrupts
>> that we can inject into the guest later (see do_inject_vcpu()). Since we
>> do not clear out the s390irq values before calling s390int_to_s390irq(),
>> there is a chance that we copy unwanted data from the kernel stack
>> into the guest memory later if the interrupt data has not been properly
>> initialized by s390int_to_s390irq().
> 
> You mean by using the migration callbacks to get all interrupts back to 
> userspace?

Oh, I was not thinking about GET_IRQ_STATE yet, I was thinking about
__deliver_pfault_init() which would deliver the value into the guest
memory (from where the userspace program could extract it again).

>> Specifically, the problem exists with the KVM_S390_INT_PFAULT_INIT
>> interrupt: s390int_to_s390irq() does not handle it, but the function
>> __deliver_pfault_init() will later copy the uninitialized stack data
>> from the ext.ext_params2 into the guest memory.
> 
> Shouldnt we add some more detailed description how this can happen?
> Something like
> "By using the KVM_S390_INTERRUPT ioctl with a KVM_S390_INT_PFAULT_INIT
> interrupt followed by the KVM_S390_GET_IRQ_STATE ioctl the user can
> extract a value from the kernel stack."

GET_IRQ_STATE certainly deserves to be mentioned here, I'll add it to
the patch description and will send a v2.

 Thomas