linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/16] KVM: x86/mmu: Move private vs. shared check above slot validity checks

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Ze-c5KHDmpz7M6eN@google.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:08:04 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>, Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>, 
	Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>, Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>, 
	Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>, Fuad Tabba <tabba@...gle.com>, 
	David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/16] KVM: x86/mmu: Move private vs. shared check above
 slot validity checks

On Mon, Mar 11, 2024, Xu Yilun wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 03:28:08PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 08, 2024, Xu Yilun wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 06:41:40PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > @@ -4410,6 +4405,16 @@ static int kvm_faultin_pfn(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_page_fault *fault,
> > > >  	fault->mmu_seq = vcpu->kvm->mmu_invalidate_seq;
> > > >  	smp_rmb();
> > > >  
> > > > +	/*
> > > > +	 * Check for a private vs. shared mismatch *after* taking a snapshot of
> > > > +	 * mmu_invalidate_seq, as changes to gfn attributes are guarded by the
> > > > +	 * invalidation notifier.
> > > 
> > > I didn't see how mmu_invalidate_seq influences gfn attribute judgement.
> > > And there is no synchronization between the below check and
> > > kvm_vm_set_mem_attributes(), the gfn attribute could still be changing
> > > after the snapshot.
> > 
> > There is synchronization.  If kvm_vm_set_mem_attributes() changes the attributes,
> > and thus bumps mmu_invalidate_seq, after kvm_faultin_pfn() takes its snapshot,
> > then is_page_fault_stale() will detect that an invalidation related to the gfn
> > occured and resume the guest *without* installing a mapping in KVM's page tables.
> > 
> > I.e. KVM may read the old, stale gfn attributes, but it will never actually
> > expose the stale attirubtes to the guest.
> 
> That makes sense!  I was just thinking of the racing for below few lines,
> 
> 	if (fault->is_private != kvm_mem_is_private(vcpu->kvm, fault->gfn)) {
> 		kvm_mmu_prepare_memory_fault_exit(vcpu, fault);
> 		return -EFAULT;
> 	}
> 
> But the guarding is actually for the whole kvm_faultin_pfn(). It is the
> the same mechanism between getting old gfn attributes and getting old pfn.
> 
> I wonder if we could instead add some general comments at
> 
>    fault->mmu_seq = vcpu->kvm->mmu_invalidate_seq;
> 
> about the snapshot and is_page_fault_stale() thing.

Yeah, I'll add a comment.  The only reason not to add a comment is that, ideally,
the comment/documentation would live in common KVM code, not x86.  But this code
already has a few big comments about the mmu_notifier retry logic, one more
definitely won't hurt.