linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 05/14] KVM: Allow range-based TLB invalidation from common code

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: <ZNv8cCzI9fMWkGWT@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Aug 2023 15:30:08 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.com>
Cc:     Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
        Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>,
        Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org>,
        Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@...gle.com>,
        Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@...gle.com>,
        Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@...gle.com>,
        David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
        Fuad Tabba <tabba@...gle.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>,
        Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 05/14] KVM: Allow range-based TLB invalidation from
 common code

On Fri, Aug 11, 2023, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> index ec169f5c7dce2..00f7bda9202f2 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> @@ -278,16 +278,14 @@ static inline bool kvm_available_flush_remote_tlbs_range(void)
>  	return kvm_x86_ops.flush_remote_tlbs_range;
>  }
>  
> -void kvm_flush_remote_tlbs_range(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t start_gfn,
> -				 gfn_t nr_pages)
> +int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_range(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t gfn, u64 nr_pages)
>  {
>  	int ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
>  
>  	if (kvm_x86_ops.flush_remote_tlbs_range)
> -		ret = static_call(kvm_x86_flush_remote_tlbs_range)(kvm, start_gfn,
> -								   nr_pages);
> -	if (ret)
> -		kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(kvm);
> +		ret = static_call(kvm_x86_flush_remote_tlbs_range)(kvm, gfn, nr_pages);
> +
> +	return ret;

Please write this as

	if (kvm_x86_ops.flush_remote_tlbs_range)
		return static_call(kvm_x86_flush_remote_tlbs_range)(kvm, gfn, nr_pages);

	return -EOPNOTSUPP;

or alternatively

	if (!kvm_x86_ops.flush_remote_tlbs_range)
		return -EOPNOTSUPP;

	return static_call(kvm_x86_flush_remote_tlbs_range)(kvm, gfn, nr_pages);

Hmm, I'll throw my official vote for the second version.

The local "ret" is unnecessary and is suprisingly dangerous.  I screwed up the
conflict resolution when cherry-picking my CONFIG_HYPERV change to see what the
conflict looked like and ended up with a double flush:

	int ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;

	if (kvm_x86_ops.flush_remote_tlbs_range)
		ret = static_call(kvm_x86_flush_remote_tlbs_range)(kvm, gfn, nr_pages);

	if (ret)
		kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(kvm);

	return ret;

Dropping "ret" makes it much harder to get trigger happy when resolving conflicts.

No need for a new version to fix the above, assuming Marc/Oliver is ok doing
fixup when applying.

Nit aside, looks good for x86, and I know of no conflicts, so take 'er away!

Acked-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>