linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 25/27] KVM: x86/mmu: Drop @slot param from exported/external page-track APIs

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: <ZFMVsFzpN16hiPUH@yzhao56-desk.sh.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 4 May 2023 10:17:20 +0800
From:   Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC:     <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Ben Gardon" <bgardon@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        <intel-gvt-dev@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Zhi Wang <zhi.a.wang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 25/27] KVM: x86/mmu: Drop @slot param from
 exported/external page-track APIs

On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 04:16:10PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Finally getting back to this series...
> 
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 04:28:56PM +0800, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 04:22:56PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > ...
> > > > +int kvm_write_track_add_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t gfn)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct kvm_memory_slot *slot;
> > > > +	int idx;
> > > > +
> > > > +	idx = srcu_read_lock(&kvm->srcu);
> > > > +
> > > > +	slot = gfn_to_memslot(kvm, gfn);
> > > > +	if (!slot) {
> > > > +		srcu_read_unlock(&kvm->srcu, idx);
> > > > +		return -EINVAL;
> > > > +	}
> > > > +
> > > Also fail if slot->flags & KVM_MEMSLOT_INVALID is true?
> > > There should exist a window for external users to see an invalid slot
> > > when a slot is about to get deleted/moved.
> > > (It happens before MOVE is rejected in kvm_arch_prepare_memory_region()).
> > 
> > Or using
> >         if (!kvm_is_visible_memslot(slot)) {
> > 		srcu_read_unlock(&kvm->srcu, idx);
> > 		return -EINVAL;
> > 	}
> 
> Hrm.  If the DELETE/MOVE succeeds, then the funky accounting is ok (by the end
> of the series) as the tracking disappears on DELETE, KVMGT will reject MOVE, and
> KVM proper zaps SPTEs and resets accounting on MOVE (account_shadowed() runs under
> mmu_lock and thus ensures all previous SPTEs are zapped before the "flush" from
> kvm_arch_flush_shadow_memslot() can run).
> 
> If kvm_prepare_memory_region() fails though...
> 
> Ah, KVM itself is safe because of the aforementioned kvm_arch_flush_shadow_memslot().
> Any accounting done on a temporarily invalid memslot will be unwound when the SPTEs
> are zapped.  So for KVM, ignoring invalid memslots is correct _and necessary_.
> We could clean that up by having accounted_shadowed() use the @slot from the fault,
> which would close the window where the fault starts with a valid memslot but then
> sees an invalid memslot when accounting a new shadow page.  But I don't think there
> is a bug there.
> 
> Right, and DELETE can't actually fail in the current code base, and we've established
> that MOVE can't possibly work.  So even if this is problematic in theory, there are
> no _unknown_ bugs, and the known bugs are fixed by the end of the series.
> 
> And at the end of the series, KVMGT drops its tracking only when the DELETE is
> committed.  So I _think_ allowing external trackers to add and remove gfns for
> write-tracking in an invalid slot is actually desirable/correct.  I'm pretty sure
> removal should be allowed as that can lead to dangling write-protection in a
> rollback scenario.   And I can't think of anything that will break (in the kernel)
> if write-tracking a gfn in an invalid slot is allowed, so I don't see any harm in
> allowing the extremely theoretical case of KVMGT shadowing a gfn in a to-be-deleted
> memslot _and_ the deletion being rolled back.
Yes, you are right!
I previously thought that
invalid_slot->arch.gfn_write_track and old->arch.gfn_write_track are
pointing to different places. But I'm wrong.
Yes, allowing INVALID slot here is more desired for deletion rolling-back.