linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: x86/mmu: Protect marking SPs unsync when using TDP MMU with spinlock

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:   Thu, 12 Aug 2021 17:37:55 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: x86/mmu: Protect marking SPs unsync when using
 TDP MMU with spinlock

On 11/08/21 17:52, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> All that said, I do not have a strong preference.  Were you thinking something
> like this?

Yes, pretty much this.

Paolo

> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> index d574c68cbc5c..b622e8a13b8b 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> @@ -2595,6 +2595,7 @@ static void kvm_unsync_page(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp)
>   int mmu_try_to_unsync_pages(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gfn_t gfn, bool can_unsync)
>   {
>          struct kvm_mmu_page *sp;
> +       bool locked = false;
> 
>          /*
>           * Force write-protection if the page is being tracked.  Note, the page
> @@ -2617,9 +2618,34 @@ int mmu_try_to_unsync_pages(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gfn_t gfn, bool can_unsync)
>                  if (sp->unsync)
>                          continue;
> 
> +               /*
> +                * TDP MMU page faults require an additional spinlock as they
> +                * run with mmu_lock held for read, not write, and the unsync
> +                * logic is not thread safe.  Take the spinklock regardless of
> +                * the MMU type to avoid extra conditionals/parameters, there's
> +                * no meaningful penalty if mmu_lock is held for write.
> +                */
> +               if (!locked) {
> +                       locked = true;
> +                       spin_lock(&kvm->arch.mmu_unsync_pages_lock);
> +
> +                       /*
> +                        * Recheck after taking the spinlock, a different vCPU
> +                        * may have since marked the page unsync.  A false
> +                        * positive on the unprotected check above is not
> +                        * possible as clearing sp->unsync_must_  hold mmu_lock
> +                        * for write, i.e. unsync cannot transition from 0->1
> +                        * while this CPU holds mmu_lock for read.
> +                        */
> +                       if (READ_ONCE(sp->unsync))
> +                               continue;
> +               }
> +
>                  WARN_ON(sp->role.level != PG_LEVEL_4K);
>                  kvm_unsync_page(vcpu, sp);
>          }
> +       if (locked)
> +               spin_unlock(&kvm->arch.mmu_unsync_pages_lock);