linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v13 12/35] KVM: Prepare for handling only shared mappings in mmu

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: <CA+EHjTyAU9XZ3OgqXjmAKh-BKsLrH_8QtnJihQxF4fhk8WPSYg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Nov 2023 14:01:39 +0000
From:   Fuad Tabba <tabba@...gle.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.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>,
        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 12/35] KVM: Prepare for handling only shared mappings
 in mmu_notifier events

Hi,

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 7:22 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> Add flags to "struct kvm_gfn_range" to let notifier events target only
> shared and only private mappings, and write up the existing mmu_notifier
> events to be shared-only (private memory is never associated with a
> userspace virtual address, i.e. can't be reached via mmu_notifiers).
>
> Add two flags so that KVM can handle the three possibilities (shared,
> private, and shared+private) without needing something like a tri-state
> enum.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZJX0hk+KpQP0KUyB@google.com
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/kvm_host.h | 2 ++
>  virt/kvm/kvm_main.c      | 7 +++++++
>  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> index 96aa930536b1..89c1a991a3b8 100644
> --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> @@ -263,6 +263,8 @@ struct kvm_gfn_range {
>         gfn_t start;
>         gfn_t end;
>         union kvm_mmu_notifier_arg arg;
> +       bool only_private;
> +       bool only_shared;

If these flags aren't used in this patch series, should this patch be
moved to the other series?

Also, if shared+private is a possibility, doesn't the prefix "only_"
confuse things a bit? I.e., what is shared+private, is it when both
are 0 or when both are 1? I assume it's the former (both are 0), but
it might be clearer.

Cheers,
/fuad

>         bool may_block;
>  };
>  bool kvm_unmap_gfn_range(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range);
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> index cb9376833c18..302ccb87b4c1 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> @@ -635,6 +635,13 @@ static __always_inline kvm_mn_ret_t __kvm_handle_hva_range(struct kvm *kvm,
>                          * the second or later invocation of the handler).
>                          */
>                         gfn_range.arg = range->arg;
> +
> +                       /*
> +                        * HVA-based notifications aren't relevant to private
> +                        * mappings as they don't have a userspace mapping.
> +                        */
> +                       gfn_range.only_private = false;
> +                       gfn_range.only_shared = true;
>                         gfn_range.may_block = range->may_block;
>
>                         /*
> --
> 2.42.0.820.g83a721a137-goog
>