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:   Thu, 14 Nov 2019 13:16:21 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
Cc:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86/mmu: Take slots_lock when using
 kvm_mmu_zap_all_fast()

On 13/11/19 20:30, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Failing to take slots_lock when toggling nx_huge_pages allows multiple
> instances of kvm_mmu_zap_all_fast() to run concurrently, as the other
> user, KVM_SET_USER_MEMORY_REGION, does not take the global kvm_lock.
> Concurrent fast zap instances causes obsolete shadow pages to be
> incorrectly identified as valid due to the single bit generation number
> wrapping, which results in stale shadow pages being left in KVM's MMU
> and leads to all sorts of undesirable behavior.

Indeed the current code fails lockdep miserably, but isn't the whole
body of kvm_mmu_zap_all_fast() covered by kvm->mmu_lock?  What kind of
badness can happen if kvm->slots_lock isn't taken?

Paolo

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ