linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7] KVM: x86: Retry page fault if MMU reload is pending and root has no sp

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: <Ybo5nOu7/bVPhzCK@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Dec 2021 18:53:16 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
        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, Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>,
        Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] KVM: x86: Retry page fault if MMU reload is pending
 and root has no sp

On Fri, Dec 10, 2021, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2021, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 12/10/21 17:01, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > KVM_REQ_MMU_RELOAD is raised after kvm->arch.mmu_valid_gen is fixed (of
> > > > course, otherwise the other CPU might just not see any obsoleted page
> > > > from the legacy MMU), therefore any check on KVM_REQ_MMU_RELOAD is just
> > > > advisory.
> > > 
> > > I disagree.  IMO, KVM should not be installing SPTEs into obsolete shadow pages,
> > > which is what continuing on allows.  I don't _think_ it's problematic, but I do
> > > think it's wrong.
> > > 
> > > [...] Eh, for all intents and purposes, KVM_REQ_MMU_RELOAD very much says
> > > special roots are obsolete.  The root will be unloaded, i.e. will no
> > > longer be used, i.e. is obsolete.
> > 
> > I understand that---but it takes some unspoken details to understand that.
> 
> Eh, it takes just as many unspoken details to understand why it's safe-ish to
> install SPTEs into an obsolete shadow page.
> 
> > In particular that both kvm_reload_remote_mmus and is_page_fault_stale are
> > called under mmu_lock write-lock, and that there's no unlock between
> > updating mmu_valid_gen and calling kvm_reload_remote_mmus.
> > 
> > (This also suggests, for the other six patches, keeping
> > kvm_reload_remote_mmus and just moving it to arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c, with an
> > assertion that the MMU lock is held for write).
> > 
> > But since we have a way forward for having no special roots to worry about,
> > it seems an unnecessary overload for 1) a patch that will last one or two
> > releasees at most 
> 
> Yeah, I don't disagree, which is why I'm not totally opposed to punting this and
> naturally fixing it by allocating shadow pages for the special roots.  But this
> code needs to be modified by Jiangshan's series either way, so it's not like we're
> saving anything meaningful.
> 
> > 2) a case that has been handled in the inefficient way forever.
> 
> I don't care about inefficiency, I'm worried about correctness.  It's extremely
> unlikely this fixes a true bug in the legacy MMU, but there's also no real
> downside to adding the check.
> 
> Anyways, either way is fine.

Ping, in case this dropped off your radar.  Regardless of how we fix this goof,
it needs to get fixed in 5.16.