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]

Date:   Tue, 26 May 2020 09:49:54 -0400
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc:     John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        cohuck@...hat.com, cai@....pw,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] vfio-pci: Invalidate mmaps and block MMIO access
 on disabled memory

On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 09:37:05PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 01:56:28PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> > On 2020-05-25 09:56, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 11:11:42AM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 11:46:51AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 10:28:06AM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sleeping looks fine, look at any FS implementation of fault, say,
> > > > > xfs. The first thing it does is xfs_ilock() which does down_write().
> > > > 
> > > > Yeah.  My wild guess is that maybe fs code will always be without
> > > > FAULT_FLAG_RETRY_NOWAIT so it's safe to sleep unconditionally (e.g., I think
> > > > the general #PF should be fine to sleep in fault(); gup should be special, but
> > > > I didn't observe any gup code called upon file systems)?
> > > 
> > > get_user_pages is called on filesystem backed pages.
> > > 
> > > I have no idea what FAULT_FLAG_RETRY_NOWAIT is supposed to do. Maybe
> > > John was able to guess when he reworked that stuff?
> > > 
> > 
> > Although I didn't end up touching that particular area, I'm sure it's going
> > to come up sometime soon, so I poked around just now, and found that
> > FAULT_FLAG_RETRY_NOWAIT was added almost exactly 9 years ago. This flag was
> > intended to make KVM and similar things behave better when doing GUP on
> > file-backed pages that might, or might not be in memory.
> > 
> > The idea is described in the changelog, but not in the code comments or
> > Documentation, sigh:
> > 
> > commit 318b275fbca1ab9ec0862de71420e0e92c3d1aa7
> > Author: Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
> > Date:   Tue Mar 22 16:30:51 2011 -0700
> > 
> >     mm: allow GUP to fail instead of waiting on a page
> > 
> >     GUP user may want to try to acquire a reference to a page if it is already
> >     in memory, but not if IO, to bring it in, is needed.  For example KVM may
> >     tell vcpu to schedule another guest process if current one is trying to
> >     access swapped out page.  Meanwhile, the page will be swapped in and the
> >     guest process, that depends on it, will be able to run again.
> > 
> >     This patch adds FAULT_FLAG_RETRY_NOWAIT (suggested by Linus) and
> >     FOLL_NOWAIT follow_page flags.  FAULT_FLAG_RETRY_NOWAIT, when used in
> >     conjunction with VM_FAULT_ALLOW_RETRY, indicates to handle_mm_fault that
> >     it shouldn't drop mmap_sem and wait on a page, but return VM_FAULT_RETRY
> >     instead.
> 
> So, from kvm's perspective it was to avoid excessively long blocking in
> common paths when it could rejoin the completed IO by somehow waiting
> on a page itself?
> 
> It all seems like it should not be used unless the page is going to go
> to IO?

I think NOWAIT is used as a common flag for kvm for its initial attempt to
fault in a normal page, however...  I just noticed another fact that actually
__get_user_pages() won't work with PFNMAP (check_vma_flags should fail), but
KVM just started to support fault() for PFNMAP from commit add6a0cd1c5b (2016)
using fixup_user_fault(), where nvidia seems to have a similar request to have
a fault handler on some mapped BARs.

> 
> Certainly there is no reason to optimize the fringe case of vfio
> sleeping if there is and incorrect concurrnent attempt to disable the
> a BAR.

If fixup_user_fault() (which is always with ALLOW_RETRY && !RETRY_NOWAIT) is
the only path for the new fault(), then current way seems ok.  Not sure whether
this would worth a WARN_ON_ONCE(RETRY_NOWAIT) in the fault() to be clear of
that fact.

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu