On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 17:45:48 +0100, Aurelien Jarno said: > On 2016-02-19 12:11, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Actually the same patch with a bit more context shows the issue:
>
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
> > index e7a4fde..b372a75 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
> > @@ -647,12 +647,13 @@ static __always_inline int __linearize(struct x86_emu
late_ctxt *ctxt,
> > bool usable;
> > ulong la;
> > u32 lim;
> > u16 sel;
> >
> > la = seg_base(ctxt, addr.seg) + addr.ea;
> > + *linear = la;
>
> The assignation is moved here...
>
> > *max_size = 0;
> > switch (mode) {
> > case X86EMUL_MODE_PROT64:
> > if (is_noncanonical_address(la))
> > goto bad;
> >
> > @@ -690,13 +691,12 @@ static __always_inline int __linearize(struct
> > x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt,
> > }
> > la &= (u32)-1;
>
> ... while the value of la might be modified in between.
(trying to reconstruct my thought process from 6 months ago. I remember
staring at that, and I convinced myself it was still OK to move the assignment.)
la can get changed here - but there's 2 cases to consider. If it's in a 32-bit
kernel, anding with -1 is a no-op.
Now if we're on a 64-bit kernel, the 'and' clears the high 32 bits.
But under what conditions is 'la' a 64-bit quantity that has
any bits set in the high 32 bits (meaning it's a pointer to something
over the 4G line) - but it's still valid to smash those bits?
pgpIZunr42EDq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
