linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 2/8] KVM: Introduce __kvm_follow

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: <CAD=HUj5ezWt7rLAv2qOpFsMHyFU87Hqtw_p8pWNF5+oxbLhxDg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Jul 2023 14:29:24 +0900
From:   David Stevens <stevensd@...omium.org>
To:     Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/8] KVM: Introduce __kvm_follow_pfn function

On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 7:53 PM Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 05, 2023 at 06:22:59PM +0900, David Stevens wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 12:10 PM Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > @@ -2514,35 +2512,26 @@ static bool hva_to_pfn_fast(unsigned long addr, bool write_fault,
> > > >   * The slow path to get the pfn of the specified host virtual address,
> > > >   * 1 indicates success, -errno is returned if error is detected.
> > > >   */
> > > > -static int hva_to_pfn_slow(unsigned long addr, bool *async, bool write_fault,
> > > > -                        bool interruptible, bool *writable, kvm_pfn_t *pfn)
> > > > +static int hva_to_pfn_slow(struct kvm_follow_pfn *foll, kvm_pfn_t *pfn)
> > > >  {
> > > > -     unsigned int flags = FOLL_HWPOISON;
> > > > +     unsigned int flags = FOLL_HWPOISON | FOLL_GET | foll->flags;
> > > >       struct page *page;
> > > >       int npages;
> > > >
> > > >       might_sleep();
> > > >
> > > > -     if (writable)
> > > > -             *writable = write_fault;
> > > > -
> > > > -     if (write_fault)
> > > > -             flags |= FOLL_WRITE;
> > > > -     if (async)
> > > > -             flags |= FOLL_NOWAIT;
> > > > -     if (interruptible)
> > > > -             flags |= FOLL_INTERRUPTIBLE;
> > > > -
> > > > -     npages = get_user_pages_unlocked(addr, 1, &page, flags);
> > > > +     npages = get_user_pages_unlocked(foll->hva, 1, &page, flags);
> > > >       if (npages != 1)
> > > >               return npages;
> > > >
> > > > +     foll->writable = (foll->flags & FOLL_WRITE) && foll->allow_write_mapping;
> > > > +
> > > >       /* map read fault as writable if possible */
> > > > -     if (unlikely(!write_fault) && writable) {
> > > > +     if (unlikely(!foll->writable) && foll->allow_write_mapping) {
> > >
> > > I guess !foll->writable should be !(foll->flags & FOLL_WRITE) here.
> >
> > The two statements are logically equivalent, although I guess using
> > !(foll->flags & FOLL_WRITE) may be a little clearer, if a little more
> > verbose.
>
> Well, as the comment says, we wanna try to map the read fault as writable
> whenever possible. And __gfn_to_pfn_memslot() will only set the FOLL_WRITE
> for write faults. So I guess using !foll->writable will not allow this.
> Did I miss anything?

We just set the foll->writable out parameter to be equal to
((foll->flags & FOLL_WRITE) && foll->allow_write_mapping). Taking a =
foll->flags & FOLL_WRITE and b = foll->allow_write_mapping, we have
!(a && b) && b -> (!a || !b) && b -> (!a && b) || (!b && b) -> !a &&
b.

-David