[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v2] xen/vcpu: ensure no write when runstate handler is NULL


  • To: Roger Pau Monné <roger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2026 15:05:05 +0100
  • Authentication-results: eu.smtp.expurgate.cloud; dkim=pass header.s=google header.d=suse.com header.i="@suse.com" header.h="Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:Autocrypt:From:Content-Language:References:Cc:To:Subject:User-Agent:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID"
  • Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
  • Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Teddy Astie <teddy.astie@xxxxxxxxxx>, Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx>, Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@xxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Delivery-date: Mon, 26 Oct 2026 14:05:10 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 26.10.2026 14:58, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2026 at 02:06:48PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 23.10.2026 18:17, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/domain.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/domain.c
>>> @@ -58,6 +58,11 @@ compat_vcpu_op(int cmd, unsigned int vcpuid, 
>>> XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg)
>>>          rc = 0;
>>>          guest_from_compat_handle(v->runstate_guest.compat, area.addr.h);
>>>  
>>> +        /* NULL handle is deregistering the address. */
>>> +        if ( compat_handle_is_null(area.addr.h) )
>>> +            break;
>>> +
>>> +        /* Update the newly-registered runstate area, best-effort. */
>>>          if ( v == current )
>>>          {
>>>              XLAT_vcpu_runstate_info(&info, &v->runstate);
>>
>> While likely unnecessary in this x86-only handling, ...
>>
>>> --- a/xen/common/domain.c
>>> +++ b/xen/common/domain.c
>>> @@ -2330,6 +2330,11 @@ long common_vcpu_op(int cmd, struct vcpu *v, 
>>> XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg)
>>>          rc = 0;
>>>          runstate_guest(v) = area.addr.h;
>>>  
>>> +        /* NULL handle is deregistering the address. */
>>> +        if ( guest_handle_is_null(area.addr.h) )
>>> +            break;
>>> +
>>> +        /* Update the newly-registered runstate area, best-effort. */
>>>          if ( v == current )
>>>          {
>>>              __copy_to_guest(runstate_guest(v), &v->runstate, 1);
>>
>> ... if we make null an official "de-register", then imo the earlier
>> guest_handle_okay() also wants bypassing in the null case. An arch
>> could - in principle - reject a null handle.
> 
> Yes, it could en theory be possible, albeit I think it's very unlikely
> we gain anything similar to x86 PV elsewhere.  Would you be OK with:

Yes, this is fine with me:
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>

Jan

> --- a/xen/common/domain.c
> +++ b/xen/common/domain.c
> @@ -2324,12 +2324,21 @@ long common_vcpu_op(int cmd, struct vcpu *v, 
> XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg)
>          if ( copy_from_guest(&area, arg, 1) )
>              break;
> 
> +        /* NULL handle is deregistering the address. */
> +        if ( guest_handle_is_null(area.addr.h) )
> +        {
> +            runstate_guest(v) = area.addr.h;
> +            rc = 0;
> +            break;
> +        }
> +
>          if ( !guest_handle_okay(area.addr.h, 1) )
>              break;
> 
>          rc = 0;
>          runstate_guest(v) = area.addr.h;
> 
> +        /* Update the newly-registered runstate area, best-effort. */
>          if ( v == current )
>          {
>              __copy_to_guest(runstate_guest(v), &v->runstate, 1);
> 
> Thanks, Roger.




 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.