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]
Date:   Wed, 24 Jul 2019 14:25:54 -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 Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 06:08:05PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> On 2019/7/24 下午4:05, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:17:14AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > On 2019/7/23 下午11:02, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > 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?
> > > 
> > > So in invalidate_end() callback we have:
> > > 
> > > spin_lock(&vq->mmu_lock);
> > > --vq->invalidate_count;
> > >          spin_unlock(&vq->mmu_lock);
> > > 
> > > 
> > > So even PTE is read speculatively before reading invalidate_count (only in
> > > the case of invalidate_count is zero). The spinlock has guaranteed that we
> > > won't read any stale PTEs.
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > I'm sorry I just do not get the argument.
> > If you want to order two reads you need an smp_rmb
> > or stronger between them executed on the same CPU.
> > 
> > Executing any kind of barrier on another CPU
> > will have no ordering effect on the 1st one.
> > 
> > 
> > So if CPU1 runs the prefetch, and CPU2 runs invalidate
> > callback, read of invalidate counter on CPU1 can bypass
> > read of PTE on CPU1 unless there's a barrier
> > in between, and nothing CPU2 does can affect that outcome.
> > 
> > 
> > What did I miss?
> 
> 
> It doesn't harm if PTE is read before invalidate_count, this is because:
> 
> 1) This speculation is serialized with invalidate_range_end() because of the
> spinlock
> 
> 2) This speculation can only make effect when we read invalidate_count as
> zero.
> 
> 3) This means the speculation is done after the last invalidate_range_end()
> and because of the spinlock, when we enter the critical section of spinlock
> in prefetch, we can not see any stale PTE that was unmapped before.
> 
> Am I wrong?
> 
> Thanks

OK I think you are right. Sorry it took me a while to figure out.

-- 
MST