linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] vfio-pci: Invalidate mmaps and block MMIO access on disabled memory

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: <20200525142806.GC1058657@xz-x1>
Date:   Mon, 25 May 2020 10:28:06 -0400
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc:     Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cohuck@...hat.com, cai@....pw
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] vfio-pci: Invalidate mmaps and block MMIO access
 on disabled memory

On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 09:26:07AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 07:52:57PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> 
> > For what I understand now, IMHO we should still need all those handlings of
> > FAULT_FLAG_RETRY_NOWAIT like in the initial version.  E.g., IIUC KVM gup will
> > try with FOLL_NOWAIT when async is allowed, before the complete slow path.  I'm
> > not sure what would be the side effect of that if fault() blocked it.  E.g.,
> > the caller could be in an atomic context.
> 
> AFAICT FAULT_FLAG_RETRY_NOWAIT only impacts what happens when
> VM_FAULT_RETRY is returned, which this doesn't do?

Yes, that's why I think we should still properly return VM_FAULT_RETRY if
needed..  because IMHO it is still possible that the caller calls with
FAULT_FLAG_RETRY_NOWAIT.

My understanding is that FAULT_FLAG_RETRY_NOWAIT majorly means:

  - We cannot release the mmap_sem, and,
  - We cannot sleep

But we're allowed to return VM_FAULT_RETRY if any of the above is necessary.

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu