On 5/24/22 17:22, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 05:11:18PM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote:
From: Paolo Bonzini pbonzini@redhat.com
commit 9f46c187e2e680ecd9de7983e4d081c3391acc76 upstream.
With shadow paging enabled, the INVPCID instruction results in a call to kvm_mmu_invpcid_gva. If INVPCID is executed with CR0.PG=0, the invlpg callback is not set and the result is a NULL pointer dereference. Fix it trivially by checking for mmu->invlpg before every call.
There are other possibilities:
check for CR0.PG, because KVM (like all Intel processors after P5) flushes guest TLB on CR0.PG changes so that INVPCID/INVLPG are a nop with paging disabled
check for EFER.LMA, because KVM syncs and flushes when switching MMU contexts outside of 64-bit mode
All of these are tricky, go for the simple solution. This is CVE-2022-1789.
Reported-by: Yongkang Jia kangel@zju.edu.cn Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini pbonzini@redhat.com [fix conflict due to missing b9e5603c2a3accbadfec570ac501a54431a6bdba] Signed-off-by: Vegard Nossum vegard.nossum@oracle.com
arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
What kernel tree(s) are you wanting this to be applied to?
I replied to the v5.17 email (https://lore.kernel.org/stable/165314153515625@kroah.com/T/#u) and I've only tested this on top of 5.17.9.
Is that generally enough to trigger attempts to automatically cherry-pick it onto the older branches or should I test and submit for the older ones as well?
How would you prefer to indicate the kernel tree(s) in the future?
Vegard