linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] KVM: x86/mmu: Track if shadow MMU active

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: <34fe30b6-0d4b-f1e8-9abd-6cb0a0765492@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 May 2021 22:18:40 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Peter Shier <pshier@...gle.com>,
        Junaid Shahid <junaids@...gle.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Yulei Zhang <yulei.kernel@...il.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong.eric@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] KVM: x86/mmu: Track if shadow MMU active

On 04/05/21 19:26, Ben Gardon wrote:
> On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 6:42 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 29/04/21 23:18, Ben Gardon wrote:
>>> +void activate_shadow_mmu(struct kvm *kvm)
>>> +{
>>> +     kvm->arch.shadow_mmu_active = true;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>
>> I think there's no lock protecting both the write and the read side.
>> Therefore this should be an smp_store_release, and all checks in
>> patch 2 should be an smp_load_acquire.
> 
> That makes sense.
> 
>>
>> Also, the assignments to slot->arch.rmap in patch 4 (alloc_memslot_rmap)
>> should be an rcu_assign_pointer, while __gfn_to_rmap must be changed like so:
>>
>> +       struct kvm_rmap_head *head;
>> ...
>> -       return &slot->arch.rmap[level - PG_LEVEL_4K][idx];
>> +       head = srcu_dereference(slot->arch.rmap[level - PG_LEVEL_4K], &kvm->srcu,
>> +                                lockdep_is_held(&kvm->slots_arch_lock));
>> +       return &head[idx];
> 
> I'm not sure I fully understand why this becomes necessary after patch
> 4. Isn't it already needed since the memslots are protected by RCU? Or
> is there already a higher level rcu dereference?
> 
> __kvm_memslots already does an srcu dereference, so is there a path
> where we aren't getting the slots from that function where this is
> needed?

There are two point of views:

1) the easier one is just CONFIG_PROVE_RCU debugging: the rmaps need to 
be accessed under RCU because the memslots can disappear as soon as 
kvm->srcu is unlocked.

2) the harder one (though at this point I'm better at figuring out these 
ordering bugs than "traditional" mutex races) is what the happens before 
relation[1] looks like.  Consider what happens if the rmaps are 
allocated by *another thread* after the slots have been fetched.

thread 1		thread 2		thread 3
allocate memslots
rcu_assign_pointer
			slots = srcu_dereference
						allocate rmap
						rcu_assign_pointer
			head = slot->arch.rmap[]

Here, thread 3 is allocating the rmaps in the SRCU-protected 
kvm_memslots; those rmaps that didn't exist at the time thread 1 did the 
rcu_assign_pointer (which synchronizes with thread 2's srcu_dereference 
that retrieves slots), hence they were not covered by the release 
semantics of that rcu_assign_pointer and the "consume" semantics of the 
corresponding srcu_dereference.  Therefore, thread 2 needs another 
srcu_dereference when retrieving them.

Paolo

[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/844224/

> I wouldn't say that the rmaps are protected by RCU in any way that
> separate from the memslots.