linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v13 16/35] KVM: Add KVM_CREATE_GUEST_MEMFD ioctl() for guest-specific backing memory

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]

Date:   Tue, 31 Oct 2023 07:10:08 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>,
        Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...el.com>,
        Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>,
        Fuad Tabba <tabba@...gle.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
        Anish Moorthy <amoorthy@...gle.com>,
        David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
        Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
        "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@...ikod.net>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@...gle.com>,
        Ackerley Tng <ackerleytng@...gle.com>,
        Maciej Szmigiero <mail@...iej.szmigiero.name>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
        Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>,
        Wang <wei.w.wang@...el.com>,
        Liam Merwick <liam.merwick@...cle.com>,
        Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 16/35] KVM: Add KVM_CREATE_GUEST_MEMFD ioctl() for
 guest-specific backing memory

On Tue, Oct 31, 2023, Chao Gao wrote:
> >+int kvm_gmem_create(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_create_guest_memfd *args)
> >+{
> >+	loff_t size = args->size;
> >+	u64 flags = args->flags;
> >+	u64 valid_flags = 0;
> >+
> >+	if (flags & ~valid_flags)
> >+		return -EINVAL;
> >+
> >+	if (size < 0 || !PAGE_ALIGNED(size))
> >+		return -EINVAL;
> 
> is size == 0 a valid case?

Nope, this is a bug.

> >+	if (!xa_empty(&gmem->bindings) &&
> >+	    xa_find(&gmem->bindings, &start, end - 1, XA_PRESENT)) {
> >+		filemap_invalidate_unlock(inode->i_mapping);
> >+		goto err;
> >+	}
> >+
> >+	/*
> >+	 * No synchronize_rcu() needed, any in-flight readers are guaranteed to
> >+	 * be see either a NULL file or this new file, no need for them to go
> >+	 * away.
> >+	 */
> >+	rcu_assign_pointer(slot->gmem.file, file);
> >+	slot->gmem.pgoff = start;
> >+
> >+	xa_store_range(&gmem->bindings, start, end - 1, slot, GFP_KERNEL);
> >+	filemap_invalidate_unlock(inode->i_mapping);
> >+
> >+	/*
> >+	 * Drop the reference to the file, even on success.  The file pins KVM,
> >+	 * not the other way 'round.  Active bindings are invalidated if the
> >+	 * file is closed before memslots are destroyed.
> >+	 */
> >+	fput(file);
> >+	return 0;
> >+
> >+err:
> >+	fput(file);
> >+	return -EINVAL;
> 
> The cleanup, i.e., filemap_invalidate_unlock() and fput(), is common. So, I think it
> may be slightly better to consolidate the common part e.g.,

I would prefer to keep this as-is.  Only goto needs the unlock, and I find it easier
to understand the success vs. error paths with explicit returns.  But it's not a
super strong preference.