linux-kernel - Re: WARNING in _

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: <20190723110219-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 23 Jul 2019 11:02:37 -0400
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc:     syzbot <syzbot+e58112d71f77113ddb7b@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        aarcange@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        christian@...uner.io, davem@...emloft.net, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
        elena.reshetova@...el.com, guro@...com, hch@...radead.org,
        james.bottomley@...senpartnership.com, jglisse@...hat.com,
        keescook@...omium.org, ldv@...linux.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
        luto@...capital.net, mhocko@...e.com, mingo@...nel.org,
        namit@...are.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        wad@...omium.org
Subject: Re: WARNING in __mmdrop

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 09:34:29PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> On 2019/7/23 下午6:27, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > Yes, since there could be multiple co-current invalidation requests. We need
> > > count them to make sure we don't pin wrong pages.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > I also wonder about ordering. kvm has this:
> > > >          /*
> > > >            * Used to check for invalidations in progress, of the pfn that is
> > > >            * returned by pfn_to_pfn_prot below.
> > > >            */
> > > >           mmu_seq = kvm->mmu_notifier_seq;
> > > >           /*
> > > >            * Ensure the read of mmu_notifier_seq isn't reordered with PTE reads in
> > > >            * gfn_to_pfn_prot() (which calls get_user_pages()), so that we don't
> > > >            * risk the page we get a reference to getting unmapped before we have a
> > > >            * chance to grab the mmu_lock without mmu_notifier_retry() noticing.
> > > >            *
> > > >            * This smp_rmb() pairs with the effective smp_wmb() of the combination
> > > >            * of the pte_unmap_unlock() after the PTE is zapped, and the
> > > >            * spin_lock() in kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_<page|range_end>() before
> > > >            * mmu_notifier_seq is incremented.
> > > >            */
> > > >           smp_rmb();
> > > > 
> > > > does this apply to us? Can't we use a seqlock instead so we do
> > > > not need to worry?
> > > I'm not familiar with kvm MMU internals, but we do everything under of
> > > mmu_lock.
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > I don't think this helps at all.
> > 
> > There's no lock between checking the invalidate counter and
> > get user pages fast within vhost_map_prefetch. So it's possible
> > that get user pages fast reads PTEs speculatively before
> > invalidate is read.
> > 
> > -- 
> 
> 
> In vhost_map_prefetch() we do:
> 
>         spin_lock(&vq->mmu_lock);
> 
>         ...
> 
>         err = -EFAULT;
>         if (vq->invalidate_count)
>                 goto err;
> 
>         ...
> 
>         npinned = __get_user_pages_fast(uaddr->uaddr, npages,
>                                         uaddr->write, pages);
> 
>         ...
> 
>         spin_unlock(&vq->mmu_lock);
> 
> Is this not sufficient?
> 
> Thanks

So what orders __get_user_pages_fast wrt invalidate_count read?

-- 
MST