linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: x86: Preserve TDP MMU roots until they are explicitly invalidated

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZEiEPVR7d+fwQ75y@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Apr 2023 18:54:05 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jeremi Piotrowski <jpiotrowski@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: x86: Preserve TDP MMU roots until they are
 explicitly invalidated

On Tue, Apr 25, 2023, David Matlack wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 05:36:37PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 24, 2023, David Matlack wrote:
> > > It'd be nice to keep around the lockdep assertion though for the other (and
> > > future) callers. The cleanest options I can think of are:
> > > 
> > > 1. Pass in a bool "vm_teardown" kvm_tdp_mmu_invalidate_all_roots() and
> > > use that to gate the lockdep assertion.
> > > 2. Take the mmu_lock for read in kvm_mmu_uninit_tdp_mmu() and pass
> > > down bool shared to kvm_tdp_mmu_invalidate_all_roots().
> > > 
> > > Both would satisfy your concern of not blocking teardown on the async
> > > worker and my concern of keeping the lockdep check. I think I prefer
> > > (1) since, as you point out, taking the mmu_lock at all is
> > > unnecessary.
> > 
> > Hmm, another option:
> > 
> >  3. Refactor the code so that kvm_arch_init_vm() doesn't call
> >     kvm_tdp_mmu_invalidate_all_roots() when VM creation fails, and then lockdep
> >     can ignore on users_count==0 without hitting the false positive.
> > 
> > I like (2) the least.  Not sure I prefer (1) versus (3).  I dislike passing bools
> > just to ignore lockdep, but reworking code for a "never hit in practice" edge case
> > is arguably worse :-/
> 
> Agree (2) is the worst option. (3) seems potentially brittle (likely to
> trigger a false-positive lockdep warning if the code ever gets
> refactored back).
> 
> How about throwing some underscores at the problem?

LOL, now we're speaking my language.

I think I have a better option though.  The false positives on users_count can be
suppressed by gating the assert on kvm->created_vcpus.  If KVM_CREATE_VM fails then
it's impossible for the VM to have created vCPUs.  I like this option in particular
because it captures why it's safe for the KVM_CREATE_VM error path to run without
mmu_lock (no vCPUs == no roots).

I'll manually test this against the error path tomorrow:

	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING) &&
	    refcount_read(&kvm->users_count) && kvm->created_vcpus)
		lockdep_assert_held_write(&kvm->mmu_lock);