Re: Re: [PATCH v4] x86/nSVM: Validate the L1 IOPM physical address range

On 18.08.2026 11:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
>On 17.08.2026 18:59, Abdelkareem Abdelsaamad wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/nestedsvm.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/nestedsvm.c
>> @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ static int nsvm_vcpu_hostrestore(struct vcpu *v, struct cpu_user_regs *regs)
>>      return 0;
>>  }
>>  
>> -static int nsvm_vmrun_permissionmap(struct vcpu *v, bool viopm)
>> +static int nsvm_vmrun_permissionmap(struct vcpu *v)
>>  {
>>      struct svm_vcpu *arch_svm = &v->arch.hvm.svm;
>>      struct nestedsvm *svm = &vcpu_nestedsvm(v);
>> @@ -294,6 +294,17 @@ static int nsvm_vmrun_permissionmap(struct vcpu *v, bool viopm)
>>      enum hvm_translation_result ret;
>>      unsigned long *ns_viomap;
>>      bool ioport_80 = true, ioport_ed = true;
>> +    /* IOPM is structured as a linear array of 64K+3 bits. */
>> +    const unsigned long nr_iopm_additional_pages = PFN_DOWN((0x10000 + 8) / 8 - 1);
>
>Hm, the expression I did suggest was indeed off by one, yet yours doesn't fit
>the comment very well. What's wrong with PFN_DOWN((0x10000 + 3) / 8) or
>PFN_DOWN((0xffff + 4) / 8)?
In the expression I wrote, I was trying to maintain maximum fidelity to the
exact byte count and fetch the last byte index, even though PFN_DOWN ultimately
maps both 8192 and 8193 to 2 pages to have more fidelity to the original
calculation. It probaly looks a bit over-engineered but I wanted to keep as
much fidelity to the actual expression.
> +    gfn_t ns_iopm_end =
> +        gfn_add(gaddr_to_gfn(ns_vmcb->_iopm_base_pa), nr_iopm_additional_pages);
>
>I'm also inclined to suggest to drop the local variable, as it's used just
>here. The overall result would be
>
>    /* IOPM is structured as a linear array of 64K+3 bits. */
>    gfn_t ns_iopm_end = gfn_add(gaddr_to_gfn(ns_vmcb->_iopm_base_pa),
>                                PFN_DOWN((0x10000 + 3) / 8));
>
>which imo is a little easier to follow. Preferably with those adjustments
>(happy to carry out while committing, but please confirm):
Sounds good to me! Please go ahead and drop it while committing. Thank you.
>Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <[email protected]>
>
>Jan