linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] kvm: arm/arm64: Take mmap_sem in stage2_unmap

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170315110514.GB31974@cbox>
Date:   Wed, 15 Mar 2017 12:05:14 +0100
From:   Christoffer Dall <cdall@...aro.org>
To:     Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
Cc:     Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, andreyknvl@...gle.com,
        dvyukov@...gle.com, christoffer.dall@...aro.org,
        kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kcc@...gle.com,
        syzkaller@...glegroups.com, will.deacon@....com,
        catalin.marinas@....com, pbonzini@...hat.com, mark.rutland@....com,
        ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] kvm: arm/arm64: Take mmap_sem in stage2_unmap_vm

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 09:34:53AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 15/03/17 09:17, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 02:52:32PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> >> From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
> >>
> >> We don't hold the mmap_sem while searching for the VMAs when
> >> we try to unmap each memslot for a VM. Fix this properly to
> >> avoid unexpected results.
> >>
> >> Fixes: commit 957db105c997 ("arm/arm64: KVM: Introduce stage2_unmap_vm")
> >> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org # v3.19+
> >> Cc: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
> >> ---
> >>  arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c | 2 ++
> >>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c
> >> index 962616f..f2e2e0c 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c
> >> @@ -803,6 +803,7 @@ void stage2_unmap_vm(struct kvm *kvm)
> >>  	int idx;
> >>  
> >>  	idx = srcu_read_lock(&kvm->srcu);
> >> +	down_read(&current->mm->mmap_sem);
> >>  	spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
> >>  
> >>  	slots = kvm_memslots(kvm);
> >> @@ -810,6 +811,7 @@ void stage2_unmap_vm(struct kvm *kvm)
> >>  		stage2_unmap_memslot(kvm, memslot);
> >>  
> >>  	spin_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
> >> +	up_read(&current->mm->mmap_sem);
> >>  	srcu_read_unlock(&kvm->srcu, idx);
> >>  }
> >>  
> >> -- 
> >> 2.7.4
> >>
> > 
> > Are we sure that holding mmu_lock is valid while holding the mmap_sem?
> 
> Maybe I'm just confused by the many levels of locking, Here's my rational:
> 
> - kvm->srcu protects the memslot list
> - mmap_sem protects the kernel VMA list
> - mmu_lock protects the stage2 page tables (at least here)
> 
> I don't immediately see any issue with holding the mmap_sem mutex here
> (unless there is a path that would retrigger a down operation on the
> mmap_sem?).
> 
> Or am I missing something obvious?

I was worried that someone else could hold the mmu_lock and take the
mmap_sem, but that wouldn't be allowed of course, because the semaphore
can sleep, so I agree, you should be good.

I just needed this conversation to feel good about this patch ;)

Reviewed-by: Christoffer Dall <cdall@...aro.org>