linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: MMU: Do not treat ZONE

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: <CAPcyv4gMu547patcROaqBqbwxut5au-WyE_M=XsKxyCLbLXHTg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 7 Nov 2019 07:36:45 -0800
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Adam Borowski <kilobyte@...band.pl>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: MMU: Do not treat ZONE_DEVICE pages as being reserved

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 3:12 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 07/11/19 06:48, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> How do mmu notifiers get held off by page references and does that
> >> machinery work with ZONE_DEVICE? Why is this not a concern for the
> >> VM_IO and VM_PFNMAP case?
> > Put another way, I see no protection against truncate/invalidate
> > afforded by a page pin. If you need guarantees that the page remains
> > valid in the VMA until KVM can install a mmu notifier that needs to
> > happen under the mmap_sem as far as I can see. Otherwise gup just
> > weakly asserts "this pinned page was valid in this vma at one point in
> > time".
>
> The MMU notifier is installed before gup, so any invalidation will be
> preceded by a call to the MMU notifier.  In turn,
> invalidate_range_start/end is called with mmap_sem held so there should
> be no race.
>
> However, as Sean mentioned, early put_page of ZONE_DEVICE pages would be
> racy, because we need to keep the reference between the gup and the last
> time we use the corresponding struct page.

If KVM is establishing the mmu_notifier before gup then there is
nothing left to do with that ZONE_DEVICE page, so I'm struggling to
see what further qualification of kvm_is_reserved_pfn() buys the
implementation.

However, if you're attracted to the explicitness of Sean's approach
can I at least ask for comments asserting that KVM knows it already
holds a reference on that page so the is_zone_device_page() usage is
safe?

David and I are otherwise trying to reduce is_zone_device_page() to
easy to audit "obviously safe" cases and converting the others with
additional synchronization.