x86/PoD: deal with misaligned GFNs

x86/PoD: deal with misaligned GFNs

Users of XENMEM_decrease_reservation and XENMEM_populate_physmap aren't
required to pass in order-aligned GFN values. (While I consider this
bogus, I don't think we can fix this there, as that might break existing
code, e.g Linux'es swiotlb, which - while affecting PV only - until
recently had been enforcing only page alignment on the original
allocation.) Only non-PoD code paths (guest_physmap_{add,remove}_page(),
p2m_set_entry()) look to be dealing with this properly (in part by being
implemented inefficiently, handling every 4k page separately).

Introduce wrappers taking care of splitting the incoming request into
aligned chunks, without putting much effort in trying to determine the
largest possible chunk at every iteration.

Also "handle" p2m_set_entry() failure for non-order-0 requests by
crashing the domain in one more place. Alongside putting a log message
there, also add one to the other similar path.

Note regarding locking: This is left in the actual worker functions on
the assumption that callers aren't guaranteed atomicity wrt acting on
multiple pages at a time. For mis-aligned GFNs gfn_lock() wouldn't have
locked the correct GFN range anyway, if it didn't simply resolve to
p2m_lock(), and for well-behaved callers there continues to be only a
single iteration, i.e. behavior is unchanged for them. (FTAOD pulling
out just pod_lock() into p2m_pod_decrease_reservation() would result in
a lock order violation.)

This is CVE-2021-28704 and CVE-2021-28707 / part of XSA-388.

Fixes: 3c352011c0d3 ("x86/PoD: shorten certain operations on higher order ranges")
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com>