[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZDdV0Fh7nDEnY/eW@google.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 18:07:28 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc: Liam Merwick <liam.merwick@...cle.com>,
Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>, 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>,
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>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@....com>,
Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>, 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,
Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>, mhocko@...e.com,
wei.w.wang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 0/9] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM
On Wed, Jan 25, 2023, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 12:20:26AM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023, Liam Merwick wrote:
> > > On 14/01/2023 00:37, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Dec 02, 2022, Chao Peng wrote:
> > > > > This patch series implements KVM guest private memory for confidential
> > > > > computing scenarios like Intel TDX[1]. If a TDX host accesses
> > > > > TDX-protected guest memory, machine check can happen which can further
> > > > > crash the running host system, this is terrible for multi-tenant
> > > > > configurations. The host accesses include those from KVM userspace like
> > > > > QEMU. This series addresses KVM userspace induced crash by introducing
> > > > > new mm and KVM interfaces so KVM userspace can still manage guest memory
> > > > > via a fd-based approach, but it can never access the guest memory
> > > > > content.
> > > > >
> > > > > The patch series touches both core mm and KVM code. I appreciate
> > > > > Andrew/Hugh and Paolo/Sean can review and pick these patches. Any other
> > > > > reviews are always welcome.
> > > > > - 01: mm change, target for mm tree
> > > > > - 02-09: KVM change, target for KVM tree
> > > >
> > > > A version with all of my feedback, plus reworked versions of Vishal's selftest,
> > > > is available here:
> > > >
> > > > git@...hub.com:sean-jc/linux.git x86/upm_base_support
> > > >
> > > > It compiles and passes the selftest, but it's otherwise barely tested. There are
> > > > a few todos (2 I think?) and many of the commits need changelogs, i.e. it's still
> > > > a WIP.
> > > >
> > >
> > > When running LTP (https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp) on the v10
> > > bits (and also with Sean's branch above) I encounter the following NULL
> > > pointer dereference with testcases/kernel/syscalls/madvise/madvise01
> > > (100% reproducible).
> > >
> > > It appears that in restrictedmem_error_page()
> > > inode->i_mapping->private_data is NULL in the
> > > list_for_each_entry_safe(inode, next, &sb->s_inodes, i_sb_list) but I
> > > don't know why.
> >
> > Kirill, can you take a look? Or pass the buck to someone who can? :-)
>
> The patch below should help.
>
> diff --git a/mm/restrictedmem.c b/mm/restrictedmem.c
> index 15c52301eeb9..39ada985c7c0 100644
> --- a/mm/restrictedmem.c
> +++ b/mm/restrictedmem.c
> @@ -307,14 +307,29 @@ void restrictedmem_error_page(struct page *page, struct address_space *mapping)
>
> spin_lock(&sb->s_inode_list_lock);
> list_for_each_entry_safe(inode, next, &sb->s_inodes, i_sb_list) {
> - struct restrictedmem *rm = inode->i_mapping->private_data;
> struct restrictedmem_notifier *notifier;
> - struct file *memfd = rm->memfd;
> + struct restrictedmem *rm;
> unsigned long index;
> + struct file *memfd;
>
> - if (memfd->f_mapping != mapping)
> + if (atomic_read(&inode->i_count))
Kirill, should this be
if (!atomic_read(&inode->i_count))
continue;
i.e. skip unreferenced inodes, not skip referenced inodes?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists