[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2ddf06e9-a541-3d9c-3a0c-db557a04afcc@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 11:18:11 +0200
From: Dov Murik <dovmurik@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, x86@...nel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH for 5.4] Fix unsynchronized access to sev members through
svm_register_enc_region
Hi Peter,
On 08/02/2021 18:48, Peter Gonda wrote:
> commit 19a23da53932bc8011220bd8c410cb76012de004 upstream.
>
> Grab kvm->lock before pinning memory when registering an encrypted
> region; sev_pin_memory() relies on kvm->lock being held to ensure
> correctness when checking and updating the number of pinned pages.
>
> Add a lockdep assertion to help prevent future regressions.
>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
> Cc: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
> Cc: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
> Cc: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
> Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
> Cc: x86@...nel.org
> Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Fixes: 1e80fdc09d12 ("KVM: SVM: Pin guest memory when SEV is active")
> Signed-off-by: Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>
>
> V2
> - Fix up patch description
> - Correct file paths svm.c -> sev.c
> - Add unlock of kvm->lock on sev_pin_memory error
>
> V1
> - https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20210126185431.1824530-1-pgonda@google.com/
>
> Message-Id: <20210127161524.2832400-1-pgonda@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/svm.c | 18 +++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c
> index 2b506904be02..93c89f1ffc5d 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c
> @@ -1830,6 +1830,8 @@ static struct page **sev_pin_memory(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long uaddr,
> struct page **pages;
> unsigned long first, last;
>
> + lockdep_assert_held(&kvm->lock);
> +
> if (ulen == 0 || uaddr + ulen < uaddr)
> return NULL;
>
> @@ -7086,12 +7088,21 @@ static int svm_register_enc_region(struct kvm *kvm,
> if (!region)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> + mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
> region->pages = sev_pin_memory(kvm, range->addr, range->size, ®ion->npages, 1);
> if (!region->pages) {
> ret = -ENOMEM;
> + mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
> goto e_free;
> }
>
> + region->uaddr = range->addr;
> + region->size = range->size;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
This extra mutex_lock call doesn't appear in the upstream patch (committed
as 19a23da5393), but does appear in the 5.4 and 4.19 backports. Is it
needed here?
-Dov
> + list_add_tail(®ion->list, &sev->regions_list);
> + mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
> +
> /*
> * The guest may change the memory encryption attribute from C=0 -> C=1
> * or vice versa for this memory range. Lets make sure caches are
> @@ -7100,13 +7111,6 @@ static int svm_register_enc_region(struct kvm *kvm,
> */
> sev_clflush_pages(region->pages, region->npages);
>
> - region->uaddr = range->addr;
> - region->size = range->size;
> -
> - mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
> - list_add_tail(®ion->list, &sev->regions_list);
> - mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
> -
> return ret;
>
> e_free:
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists