linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] kvm/x86: Allow to respond to generic signals during slow page faults

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: <YrS/kegBGqsSLO7y@xz-m1.local>
Date:   Thu, 23 Jun 2022 15:31:29 -0400
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Linux MM Mailing List <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] kvm/x86: Allow to respond to generic signals during
 slow page faults

Hi, Sean,

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 02:46:08PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022, Peter Xu wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > index e92f1ab63d6a..b39acb7cb16d 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > @@ -3012,6 +3012,13 @@ static int kvm_handle_bad_page(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gfn_t gfn, kvm_pfn_t pfn)
> >  static int handle_abnormal_pfn(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_page_fault *fault,
> >  			       unsigned int access)
> >  {
> > +	/* NOTE: not all error pfn is fatal; handle intr before the other ones */
> > +	if (unlikely(is_intr_pfn(fault->pfn))) {
> > +		vcpu->run->exit_reason = KVM_EXIT_INTR;
> > +		++vcpu->stat.signal_exits;
> > +		return -EINTR;
> > +	}
> > +
> >  	/* The pfn is invalid, report the error! */
> >  	if (unlikely(is_error_pfn(fault->pfn)))
> >  		return kvm_handle_bad_page(vcpu, fault->gfn, fault->pfn);
> > @@ -4017,6 +4024,8 @@ static int kvm_faultin_pfn(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_page_fault *fault)
> >  		}
> >  	}
> >  
> > +	/* Allow to respond to generic signals in slow page faults */
> 
> "slow" is being overloaded here.  The previous call __gfn_to_pfn_memslot() will
> end up in hva_to_pfn_slow(), but because of passing a non-null async it won't wait.
> This code really should have a more extensive comment irrespective of the interruptible
> stuff, now would be a good time to add that.

Yes I agree, especially the "async" parameter along with "atomic" makes it
even more confusing as you said.  But isn't that also means the "slow" here
is spot-on?  I mean imho it's the "elsewhere" needs cleanup not this
comment itself since it's really stating the fact that this is the real
slow path?

Or any other suggestions greatly welcomed on how I should improve this
comment.

> 
> Comments aside, isn't this series incomplete from the perspective that there are
> still many flows where KVM will hang if gfn_to_pfn() gets stuck in gup?  E.g. if
> KVM is retrieving a page pointed at by vmcs12.

Right.  The thing is I'm not confident I can make it complete easily in one
shot..

I mentioned some of that in cover letter or commit message of patch 1, in
that I don't think all the gup call sites are okay with being interrupted
by a non-fatal signal.

So what I want to do is doing it step by step, at least by introducing
FOLL_INTERRUPTIBLE and having one valid user of it that covers a very valid
use case.  I'm also pretty sure the page fault path is really the most
cases that will happen with GUP, so it already helps in many ways for me
when running with a patched kernel.

So when the complete picture is non-trivial to achieve in one shot, I think
this could be one option we go for.  With the facility (and example code on
x86 slow page fault) ready, hopefully we could start to convert many other
call sites to be signal-aware, outside page faults, or even outside x86,
because it's really a more generic problem, which I fully agree.

Does it sound reasonable to you?

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu