linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 7/8] KVM: x86/mmu: Protect rmaps independently with SRCU

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: <YJlxQe1AXljq5yhQ@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 May 2021 17:45:37 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        Peter Shier <pshier@...gle.com>,
        Yulei Zhang <yulei.kernel@...il.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>,
        Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong.eric@...il.com>,
        Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>,
        Keqian Zhu <zhukeqian1@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 7/8] KVM: x86/mmu: Protect rmaps independently with
 SRCU

On Fri, May 07, 2021, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 06/05/21 20:42, Ben Gardon wrote:
> > In preparation for lazily allocating the rmaps when the TDP MMU is in
> > use, protect the rmaps with SRCU. Unfortunately, this requires
> > propagating a pointer to struct kvm around to several functions.
> 
> Thinking more about it, this is not needed because all reads of the rmap
> array are guarded by the load-acquire of kvm->arch.memslots_have_rmaps.
> That is, the pattern is always
> 
> 	if (!load-acquire(memslot_have_rmaps))
> 		return;
> 	... = __gfn_to_rmap(...)
> 
> 				slots->arch.rmap[x] = ...
> 				store-release(memslot_have_rmaps, true)
> 
> where the load-acquire/store-release have the same role that
> srcu_dereference/rcu_assign_pointer had before this patch.
> 
> We also know that any read that misses the check has the potential for a
> NULL pointer dereference, so it *has* to be like that.
> 
> That said, srcu_dereference has zero cost unless debugging options are
> enabled, and it *is* true that the rmap can disappear if kvm->srcu is not
> held, so I lean towards keeping this change and just changing the commit
> message like this:
> 
> ---------
> Currently, rmaps are always allocated and published together with a new
> memslot, so the srcu_dereference for the memslots array already ensures that
> the memory pointed to by slots->arch.rmap is zero at the time
> slots->arch.rmap.  However, they still need to be accessed in an SRCU
> read-side critical section, as the whole memslot can be deleted outside
> SRCU.
> --------

I disagree, sprinkling random and unnecessary __rcu/SRCU annotations does more
harm than good.  Adding the unnecessary tag could be quite misleading as it
would imply the rmap pointers can _change_ independent of the memslots.

Similary, adding rcu_assign_pointer() in alloc_memslot_rmap() implies that its
safe to access the rmap after its pointer is assigned, and that's simply not
true since an rmap array can be freed if rmap allocation for a different memslot
fails.  Accessing the rmap is safe if and only if all rmaps are allocated, i.e.
if arch.memslots_have_rmaps is true, as you pointed out.

Furthermore, to actually gain any protection from SRCU, there would have to be
an synchronize_srcu() call after assigning the pointers, and that _does_ have an
associated.  Not to mention that to truly respect the __rcu annotation, deleting
the rmaps would also have to be done "independently" with the correct
rcu_assign_pointer() and synchronize_srcu() logic.