linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 03/11] KVM: Introduce kvm_vm_has_run

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: <87y25gcfti.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 22 Nov 2021 16:31:37 +0000
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To:     Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.com>
Cc:     Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@....com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Peter Shier <pshier@...gle.com>,
        Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@...gle.com>,
        Oliver Upton <oupton@...gle.com>,
        Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@...gle.com>,
        Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@...gle.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 03/11] KVM: Introduce kvm_vm_has_run_once

On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 01:22:26 +0000,
Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.com> wrote:
> 
> The upcoming patches need a way to detect if the VM, as
> a whole, has started. Hence, unionize kvm_vcpu_has_run_once()
> of all the vcpus of the VM and build kvm_vm_has_run_once()
> to achieve the functionality.
> 
> No functional change intended.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/kvm_host.h |  2 ++
>  virt/kvm/kvm_main.c      | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 19 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> index b373929c71eb..102e00c0e21c 100644
> --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> @@ -1854,4 +1854,6 @@ static inline bool kvm_vcpu_has_run_once(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  	return vcpu->has_run_once;
>  }
>  
> +bool kvm_vm_has_run_once(struct kvm *kvm);
> +
>  #endif
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> index 1ec8a8e959b2..3d8d96e8f61d 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> @@ -4339,6 +4339,23 @@ static int kvm_vm_ioctl_get_stats_fd(struct kvm *kvm)
>  	return fd;
>  }
>  
> +bool kvm_vm_has_run_once(struct kvm *kvm)
> +{
> +	int i, ret = false;
> +	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
> +
> +	kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
> +		ret = kvm_vcpu_has_run_once(vcpu);
> +		if (ret)
> +			break;
> +	}
> +
> +	mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
> +	return ret;
> +}

This is horribly racy. Nothing prevents a vcpu from running behind
your back. If you want any sort of guarantee, look at what we do in
kvm_vgic_create(). Alexandru has patches that extract it to make it
generally available (at least for arm64).

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.