linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] KVM: Bail from the dirty ring reset flow if a signal is pending

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: <Z4YSVGDL7hL2iwVl@yzhao56-desk.sh.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 15:29:24 +0800
From: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, Maxim Levitsky
	<mlevitsk@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] KVM: Bail from the dirty ring reset flow if a signal
 is pending

On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 07:48:46AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2025, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 05:04:06PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > Abort a dirty ring reset if the current task has a pending signal, as the
> > > hard limit of INT_MAX entries doesn't ensure KVM will respond to a signal
> > > in a timely fashion.
> > > 
> > > Fixes: fb04a1eddb1a ("KVM: X86: Implement ring-based dirty memory tracking")
> > > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
> > > ---
> > >  virt/kvm/dirty_ring.c | 3 +++
> > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/dirty_ring.c b/virt/kvm/dirty_ring.c
> > > index 2faf894dec5a..a81ad17d5eef 100644
> > > --- a/virt/kvm/dirty_ring.c
> > > +++ b/virt/kvm/dirty_ring.c
> > > @@ -117,6 +117,9 @@ int kvm_dirty_ring_reset(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_dirty_ring *ring,
> > >  	cur_slot = cur_offset = mask = 0;
> > >  
> > >  	while (likely((*nr_entries_reset) < INT_MAX)) {
> > > +		if (signal_pending(current))
> > > +			return -EINTR;
> > Will it break the userspace when a signal is pending? e.g. QEMU might report an
> > error like
> > "kvm_dirty_ring_reap_locked: Assertion `ret == total' failed".
> 
> Ugh.  In theory, yes.  In practice, I hope not?  If it's a potential problem for
> QEMU, the only idea have is to only react to fatal signals by default, and then
> let userspace opt-in to reacting to non-fatal signals.
So, what about just fatal_signal_pending() as in other ioctls in kernel?

if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
	return -EINTR;

> 
> > 
> > >  		entry = &ring->dirty_gfns[ring->reset_index & (ring->size - 1)];
> > >  
> > >  		if (!kvm_dirty_gfn_harvested(entry))
> > > -- 
> > > 2.47.1.613.gc27f4b7a9f-goog
> > > 
>