linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCHES 1/2] iommu: Add RCU-protected page free support

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, 9 Jun 2022 17:06:44 +0000
From:   "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>
To:     Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@...cle.com>,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCHES 1/2] iommu: Add RCU-protected page free support

On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 03:08:10PM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> The IOMMU page tables are updated using iommu_map/unmap() interfaces.
> Currently, there is no mandatory requirement for drivers to use locks
> to ensure concurrent updates to page tables, because it's assumed that
> overlapping IOVA ranges do not have concurrent updates. Therefore the
> IOMMU drivers only need to take care of concurrent updates to level
> page table entries.

The last part doesn't read well.. 
s/updates to level page table entries/ updates to page-table entries at the
same level

> 
> But enabling new features challenges this assumption. For example, the
> hardware assisted dirty page tracking feature requires scanning page
> tables in interfaces other than mapping and unmapping. This might result
> in a use-after-free scenario in which a level page table has been freed
> by the unmap() interface, while another thread is scanning the next level
> page table.
> 
> This adds RCU-protected page free support so that the pages are really
> freed and reused after a RCU grace period. Hence, the page tables are
> safe for scanning within a rcu_read_lock critical region. Considering
> that scanning the page table is a rare case, this also adds a domain
> flag and the RCU-protected page free is only used when this flat is set.

s/flat/flag

> 
> Signed-off-by: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/iommu.h |  9 +++++++++
>  drivers/iommu/iommu.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 32 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/iommu.h b/include/linux/iommu.h
> index 5e1afe169549..6f68eabb8567 100644
> --- a/include/linux/iommu.h
> +++ b/include/linux/iommu.h
> @@ -95,6 +95,7 @@ struct iommu_domain {
>  	void *handler_token;
>  	struct iommu_domain_geometry geometry;
>  	struct iommu_dma_cookie *iova_cookie;
> +	unsigned long concurrent_traversal:1;

Does this need to be a bitfield? Even though you are needing just one bit
now, you can probably make have maskbits?


>  };
>  
>  static inline bool iommu_is_dma_domain(struct iommu_domain *domain)
> @@ -657,6 +658,12 @@ static inline void dev_iommu_priv_set(struct device *dev, void *priv)
>  	dev->iommu->priv = priv;
>  }
>  
> +static inline void domain_set_concurrent_traversal(struct iommu_domain *domain,
> +						   bool value)
> +{
> +	domain->concurrent_traversal = value;
> +}
> +
>  int iommu_probe_device(struct device *dev);
>  void iommu_release_device(struct device *dev);
>  
> @@ -677,6 +684,8 @@ int iommu_group_claim_dma_owner(struct iommu_group *group, void *owner);
>  void iommu_group_release_dma_owner(struct iommu_group *group);
>  bool iommu_group_dma_owner_claimed(struct iommu_group *group);
>  
> +void iommu_free_pgtbl_pages(struct iommu_domain *domain,
> +			    struct list_head *pages);
>  #else /* CONFIG_IOMMU_API */
>  
>  struct iommu_ops {};
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
> index 847ad47a2dfd..ceeb97ebe3e2 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
> @@ -3252,3 +3252,26 @@ bool iommu_group_dma_owner_claimed(struct iommu_group *group)
>  	return user;
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(iommu_group_dma_owner_claimed);
> +
> +static void pgtble_page_free_rcu(struct rcu_head *rcu)

maybe the names can be consistent? pgtble_ vs pgtbl below.

vote to drop the 'e' :-)

> +{
> +	struct page *page = container_of(rcu, struct page, rcu_head);
> +
> +	__free_pages(page, 0);
> +}
> +
> +void iommu_free_pgtbl_pages(struct iommu_domain *domain,
> +			    struct list_head *pages)
> +{
> +	struct page *page, *next;
> +
> +	if (!domain->concurrent_traversal) {
> +		put_pages_list(pages);
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	list_for_each_entry_safe(page, next, pages, lru) {
> +		list_del(&page->lru);
> +		call_rcu(&page->rcu_head, pgtble_page_free_rcu);
> +	}
> +}
> -- 
> 2.25.1
>