linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] vfio/type1: Support faulting PFNMAP vmas

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: <20200507235421.GK26002@ziepe.ca>
Date:   Thu, 7 May 2020 20:54:21 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc:     Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cohuck@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] vfio/type1: Support faulting PFNMAP vmas

On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 05:24:43PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 03:54:44PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > With conversion to follow_pfn(), DMA mapping a PFNMAP range depends on
> > the range being faulted into the vma.  Add support to manually provide
> > that, in the same way as done on KVM with hva_to_pfn_remapped().
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
> >  drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c |   36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> >  1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > index cc1d64765ce7..4a4cb7cd86b2 100644
> > +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > @@ -317,6 +317,32 @@ static int put_pfn(unsigned long pfn, int prot)
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> > +static int follow_fault_pfn(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct mm_struct *mm,
> > +			    unsigned long vaddr, unsigned long *pfn,
> > +			    bool write_fault)
> > +{
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	ret = follow_pfn(vma, vaddr, pfn);
> > +	if (ret) {
> > +		bool unlocked = false;
> > +
> > +		ret = fixup_user_fault(NULL, mm, vaddr,
> > +				       FAULT_FLAG_REMOTE |
> > +				       (write_fault ?  FAULT_FLAG_WRITE : 0),
> > +				       &unlocked);
> > +		if (unlocked)
> > +			return -EAGAIN;
> 
> Hi, Alex,
> 
> IIUC this retry is not needed too because fixup_user_fault() will guarantee the
> fault-in is done correctly with the valid PTE as long as ret==0, even if
> unlocked==true.

It is true, and today it is fine, but be careful when reworking this
to use notifiers as unlocked also means things like the vma pointer
are invalidated.

Jason