linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 3/4] mm: guest_memfd: Add option to remove guest private memory from direct map

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: <20240820094213541-0700.eberman@hu-eberman-lv.qualcomm.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:56:10 -0700
From: Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@...cinc.com>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini
	<pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Fuad Tabba
	<tabba@...gle.com>, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Patrick Roy
	<roypat@...zon.co.uk>, <qperret@...gle.com>,
        Ackerley Tng
	<ackerleytng@...gle.com>, <linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev>,
        <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 3/4] mm: guest_memfd: Add option to remove guest
 private memory from direct map

On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 01:09:52PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 11:34:49AM -0700, Elliot Berman wrote:
> > This patch was reworked from Patrick's patch:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240709132041.3625501-6-roypat@amazon.co.uk/
> > 
> > While guest_memfd is not available to be mapped by userspace, it is
> > still accessible through the kernel's direct map. This means that in
> > scenarios where guest-private memory is not hardware protected, it can
> > be speculatively read and its contents potentially leaked through
> > hardware side-channels. Removing guest-private memory from the direct
> > map, thus mitigates a large class of speculative execution issues
> > [1, Table 1].
> > 
> > Direct map removal do not reuse the `.prepare` machinery, since
> > `prepare` can be called multiple time, and it is the responsibility of
> > the preparation routine to not "prepare" the same folio twice [2]. Thus,
> > instead explicitly check if `filemap_grab_folio` allocated a new folio,
> > and remove the returned folio from the direct map only if this was the
> > case.
> > 
> > The patch uses release_folio instead of free_folio to reinsert pages
> > back into the direct map as by the time free_folio is called,
> > folio->mapping can already be NULL. This means that a call to
> > folio_inode inside free_folio might deference a NULL pointer, leaving no
> > way to access the inode which stores the flags that allow determining
> > whether the page was removed from the direct map in the first place.
> > 
> > [1]: https://download.vusec.net/papers/quarantine_raid23.pdf
> > 
> > Cc: Patrick Roy <roypat@...zon.co.uk>
> > Signed-off-by: Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@...cinc.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/guest_memfd.h |  8 ++++++
> >  mm/guest_memfd.c            | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  2 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/guest_memfd.h b/include/linux/guest_memfd.h
> > index be56d9d53067..f9e4a27aed67 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/guest_memfd.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/guest_memfd.h
> > @@ -25,6 +25,14 @@ struct guest_memfd_operations {
> >  	int (*release)(struct inode *inode);
> >  };
> >  
> > +/**
> > + * @GUEST_MEMFD_FLAG_NO_DIRECT_MAP: When making folios inaccessible by host, also
> > + *                                  remove them from the kernel's direct map.
> > + */
> > +enum {
> 
> please name this enum, otherwise kernel-doc wont' be happy
> 
> > +	GUEST_MEMFD_FLAG_NO_DIRECT_MAP		= BIT(0),
> > +};
> > +
> >  /**
> >   * @GUEST_MEMFD_GRAB_UPTODATE: Ensure pages are zeroed/up to date.
> >   *                             If trusted hyp will do it, can ommit this flag
> > diff --git a/mm/guest_memfd.c b/mm/guest_memfd.c
> > index 580138b0f9d4..e9d8cab72b28 100644
> > --- a/mm/guest_memfd.c
> > +++ b/mm/guest_memfd.c
> > @@ -7,9 +7,55 @@
> >  #include <linux/falloc.h>
> >  #include <linux/guest_memfd.h>
> >  #include <linux/pagemap.h>
> > +#include <linux/set_memory.h>
> > +
> > +static inline int guest_memfd_folio_private(struct folio *folio)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long nr_pages = folio_nr_pages(folio);
> > +	unsigned long i;
> > +	int r;
> > +
> > +	for (i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++) {
> > +		struct page *page = folio_page(folio, i);
> > +
> > +		r = set_direct_map_invalid_noflush(page);
> > +		if (r < 0)
> > +			goto out_remap;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	folio_set_private(folio);
> > +	return 0;
> > +out_remap:
> > +	for (; i > 0; i--) {
> > +		struct page *page = folio_page(folio, i - 1);
> > +
> > +		BUG_ON(set_direct_map_default_noflush(page));
> > +	}
> > +	return r;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline void guest_memfd_folio_clear_private(struct folio *folio)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long start = (unsigned long)folio_address(folio);
> > +	unsigned long nr = folio_nr_pages(folio);
> > +	unsigned long i;
> > +
> > +	if (!folio_test_private(folio))
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) {
> > +		struct page *page = folio_page(folio, i);
> > +
> > +		BUG_ON(set_direct_map_default_noflush(page));
> > +	}
> > +	flush_tlb_kernel_range(start, start + folio_size(folio));
> 
> I think that TLB flush should come after removing pages from the direct map
> rather than after adding them back.
> 

Gunyah flushes the tlb when it removes the stage 2 mapping, so we
skipped it on removal as a performance optimization. I remember seeing
that pKVM does the same (tlb flush for the stage 2 unmap & the
equivalent for x86). Patrick had also done the same in their patches.

Thanks,
Elliot