| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2022 22:06:15 +0800
From: Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>
To: Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, qemu-devel@...gnu.org,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
x86@...nel.org, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
"J . Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Steven Price <steven.price@....com>,
"Maciej S . Szmigiero" <mail@...iej.szmigiero.name>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@...gle.com>,
Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
luto@...nel.org, jun.nakajima@...el.com, dave.hansen@...el.com,
ak@...ux.intel.com, david@...hat.com, aarcange@...hat.com,
ddutile@...hat.com, dhildenb@...hat.com,
Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>, tabba@...gle.com,
mhocko@...e.com, Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
wei.w.wang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/8] mm: Introduce memfd_restricted system call to
create restricted user memory
On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 06:37:25PM -0600, Michael Roth wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 11:13:37PM +0800, Chao Peng wrote:
...
> > +static long restrictedmem_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode,
> > + loff_t offset, loff_t len)
> > +{
> > + struct restrictedmem_data *data = file->f_mapping->private_data;
> > + struct file *memfd = data->memfd;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + if (mode & FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE) {
> > + if (!PAGE_ALIGNED(offset) || !PAGE_ALIGNED(len))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + restrictedmem_notifier_invalidate(data, offset, offset + len, true);
>
> The KVM restrictedmem ops seem to expect pgoff_t, but here we pass
> loff_t. For SNP we've made this strange as part of the following patch
> and it seems to produce the expected behavior:
That's correct. Thanks.
>
> https://github.com/mdroth/linux/commit/d669c7d3003ff7a7a47e73e8c3b4eeadbd2c4eb6
>
> > + ret = memfd->f_op->fallocate(memfd, mode, offset, len);
> > + restrictedmem_notifier_invalidate(data, offset, offset + len, false);
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
>
> <snip>
>
> > +int restrictedmem_get_page(struct file *file, pgoff_t offset,
> > + struct page **pagep, int *order)
> > +{
> > + struct restrictedmem_data *data = file->f_mapping->private_data;
> > + struct file *memfd = data->memfd;
> > + struct page *page;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + ret = shmem_getpage(file_inode(memfd), offset, &page, SGP_WRITE);
>
> This will result in KVM allocating pages that userspace hasn't necessary
> fallocate()'d. In the case of SNP we need to get the PFN so we can clean
> up the RMP entries when restrictedmem invalidations are issued for a GFN
> range.
Yes fallocate() is unnecessary unless someone wants to reserve some
space (e.g. for determination or performance purpose), this matches its
semantics perfectly at:
https://www.man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/fallocate.2.html
>
> If the guest supports lazy-acceptance however, these pages may not have
> been faulted in yet, and if the VMM defers actually fallocate()'ing space
> until the guest actually tries to issue a shared->private for that GFN
> (to support lazy-pinning), then there may never be a need to allocate
> pages for these backends.
>
> However, the restrictedmem invalidations are for GFN ranges so there's
> no way to know inadvance whether it's been allocated yet or not. The
> xarray is one option but currently it defaults to 'private' so that
> doesn't help us here. It might if we introduced a 'uninitialized' state
> or something along that line instead of just the binary
> 'shared'/'private' though...
How about if we change the default to 'shared' as we discussed at
https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y35gI0L8GMt9+OkK@google.com/?
>
> But for now we added a restrictedmem_get_page_noalloc() that uses
> SGP_NONE instead of SGP_WRITE to avoid accidentally allocating a bunch
> of memory as part of guest shutdown, and a
> kvm_restrictedmem_get_pfn_noalloc() variant to go along with that. But
> maybe a boolean param is better? Or maybe SGP_NOALLOC is the better
> default, and we just propagate an error to userspace if they didn't
> fallocate() in advance?
This (making fallocate() a hard requirement) not only complicates the
userspace but also forces the lazy-faulting going through a long path of
exiting to userspace. Unless we don't have other options I would not go
this way.
Chao
>
> -Mike
>
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + *pagep = page;
> > + if (order)
> > + *order = thp_order(compound_head(page));
> > +
> > + SetPageUptodate(page);
> > + unlock_page(page);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(restrictedmem_get_page);
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists