linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 22/28] KVM: x86/mmu: Zap defunct roots via asynchronous worker

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: <Yh/X3m1rjYaY2s0z@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Mar 2022 20:47:26 +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>,
        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>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
        Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>,
        Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 22/28] KVM: x86/mmu: Zap defunct roots via
 asynchronous worker

On Wed, Mar 02, 2022, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 3/2/22 20:33, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > What about that idea?  Put roots invalidated by "fast zap" on_another_  list?
> > My very original idea of moving the roots to a separate list didn't work because
> > the roots needed to be reachable by the mmu_notifier.  But we could just add
> > another list_head (inside the unsync_child_bitmap union) and add the roots to
> > _that_  list.
> 
> Perhaps the "separate list" idea could be extended to have a single worker
> for all kvm_tdp_mmu_put_root() work, and then indeed replace
> kvm_tdp_mmu_zap_invalidated_roots() with a flush of _that_ worker.  The
> disadvantage is a little less parallelism in zapping invalidated roots; but
> what is good for kvm_tdp_mmu_zap_invalidated_roots() is just as good for
> kvm_tdp_mmu_put_root(), I suppose.  If one wants separate work items, KVM
> could have its own workqueue, and then you flush that workqueue.
> 
> For now let's do it the simple but ugly way.  Keeping
> next_invalidated_root() does not make things worse than the status quo, and
> further work will be easier to review if it's kept separate from this
> already-complex work.

Oof, that's not gonna work.  My approach here in v3 doesn't work either.  I finally
remembered why I had the dedicated tdp_mmu_defunct_root flag and thus the smp_mb_*()
dance.

kvm_tdp_mmu_zap_invalidated_roots() assumes that it was gifted a reference to
_all_ invalid roots by kvm_tdp_mmu_invalidate_all_roots().  This works in the
current code base only because kvm->slots_lock is held for the entire duration,
i.e. roots can't become invalid between the end of kvm_tdp_mmu_invalidate_all_roots()
and the end of kvm_tdp_mmu_zap_invalidated_roots().

Marking a root invalid in kvm_tdp_mmu_put_root() breaks that assumption, e.g. if a
new root is created and then dropped, it will be marked invalid but the "fast zap"
will not have a reference.  The "defunct" flag prevents this scenario by allowing
the "fast zap" path to identify invalid roots for which it did not take a reference.
By virtue of holding a reference, "fast zap" also guarantees that the roots it needs
to invalidate and put can't become defunct.

My preference would be to either go back to a variant of v2, or to implement my
"second list" idea.  

I also need to figure out why I didn't encounter errors in v3, because I distinctly
remember underflowing the refcount before adding the defunct flag...