Re: [Xen-devel] Xen Security Advisory 173 (CVE-2016-3960) - x86 shadow pagetables: address width overflow

[Philipp Hahn <hahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,


Am 18.04.2016 um 15:31 schrieb Xen.org security team:
>             Xen Security Advisory CVE-2016-3960 / XSA-173
>                               version 3
> 
>              x86 shadow pagetables: address width overflow
...
> ISSUE DESCRIPTION
> =================
> In the x86 shadow pagetable code, the guest frame number of a
> superpage mapping is stored in a 32-bit field.  If a shadowed guest
> can cause a superpage mapping of a guest-physical address at or above
> 2^44 to be shadowed, the top bits of the address will be lost, causing
> an assertion failure or NULL dereference later on, in code that
> removes the shadow.
...
> VULNERABLE SYSTEMS
> ==================
> Xen versions from 3.4 onwards are affected.
> 
> Only x86 variants of Xen are susceptible.  ARM variants are not
> affected.
...
> RESOLUTION
> ==========
> Applying the appropriate attached patch resolves this issue.
...
> xsa173-4.3.patch       Xen 4.3.x

As Xen-4.2 and xen-4.1 are also vulnerable, I'm trying to backport this.
The 4.3 patch applies mostly, but compilation fails as x86-32-bit
support was dropped with Xen-4.3 and  _PAGE_INVALID_BIT remains
undefined for x86-32:
> guest_walk.c: In function 'mandatory_flags':
> guest_walk.c:66:40: error: '_PAGE_INVALID_BIT' undeclared (first use in this 
> function)
> guest_walk.c:66:40: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once 
> for each function it appears in
> guest_walk.c: In function 'guest_walk_tables_2_levels':
> guest_walk.c:146:30: error: '_PAGE_INVALID_BIT' undeclared (first use in this 
> function)
> guest_walk.c: In function 'mandatory_flags':
> guest_walk.c:67:1: error: control reaches end of non-void function 
> [-Werror=return-type]

It's only defined for x86-64:
> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/x86_64/page.h
> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/x86_64/page.h
...
> +/*
> + * Bit 24 of a 24-bit flag mask!  This is not any bit of a real pte,
> + * and is only used for signalling in variables that contain flags.
> + */
> +#define _PAGE_INVALID_BIT (1U<<24)
> +
>  #endif /* __X86_64_PAGE_H__ */

I guess using bit 24 is okay for 32 bit, too.

Can someone confirm that please?

Philipp

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel