linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] KVM: mmu: remove over-aggressive warnings

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, 6 Jan 2022 11:42:39 +0900
From:   David Stevens <stevensd@...omium.org>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@....com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Chia-I Wu <olv@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] KVM: mmu: remove over-aggressive warnings

On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 4:19 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2022, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Ah, I got royally confused by ensure_pfn_ref()'s comment
> >
> >   * Certain IO or PFNMAP mappings can be backed with valid
> >   * struct pages, but be allocated without refcounting e.g.,
> >   * tail pages of non-compound higher order allocations, which
> >   * would then underflow the refcount when the caller does the
> >   * required put_page. Don't allow those pages here.
> >                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > that doesn't apply here because kvm_faultin_pfn() uses the low level
> > __gfn_to_pfn_page_memslot().
>
> On fifth thought, I think this is wrong and doomed to fail.  By mapping these pages
> into the guest, KVM is effectively saying it supports these pages.  But if the guest
> uses the corresponding gfns for an action that requires KVM to access the page,
> e.g. via kvm_vcpu_map(), ensure_pfn_ref() will reject the access and all sorts of
> bad things will happen to the guest.
>
> So, why not fully reject these types of pages?  If someone is relying on KVM to
> support these types of pages, then we'll fail fast and get a bug report letting us
> know we need to properly support these types of pages.  And if not, then we reduce
> KVM's complexity and I get to keep my precious WARN :-)

Our current use case here is virtio-gpu blob resources [1]. Blob
resources are useful because they avoid a guest shadow buffer and the
associated memcpys, and as I understand it they are also required for
virtualized vulkan.

One type of blob resources requires mapping dma-bufs allocated by the
host directly into the guest. This works on Intel platforms and the
ARM platforms I've tested. However, the amdgpu driver sometimes
allocates higher order, non-compound pages via ttm_pool_alloc_page.
These are the type of pages which KVM is currently rejecting. Is this
something that KVM can support?

+olv, who has done some of the blob resource work.

[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/dri-devel/cover/20200814024000.2485-1-gurchetansingh@chromium.org/

-David