linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 5/6] KVM: arm64: Allow cacheable stage 2 mapping using VMA flags

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: <07e0fddd-76ba-4905-95f4-b98063215866@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2025 16:13:22 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>, ankita@...dia.com
Cc: maz@...nel.org, oliver.upton@...ux.dev, joey.gouly@....com,
 suzuki.poulose@....com, yuzenghui@...wei.com, catalin.marinas@....com,
 will@...nel.org, ryan.roberts@....com, shahuang@...hat.com,
 lpieralisi@...nel.org, ddutile@...hat.com, seanjc@...gle.com,
 aniketa@...dia.com, cjia@...dia.com, kwankhede@...dia.com, kjaju@...dia.com,
 targupta@...dia.com, vsethi@...dia.com, acurrid@...dia.com,
 apopple@...dia.com, jhubbard@...dia.com, danw@...dia.com, zhiw@...dia.com,
 mochs@...dia.com, udhoke@...dia.com, dnigam@...dia.com,
 alex.williamson@...hat.com, sebastianene@...gle.com, coltonlewis@...gle.com,
 kevin.tian@...el.com, yi.l.liu@...el.com, ardb@...nel.org,
 akpm@...ux-foundation.org, gshan@...hat.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 tabba@...gle.com, qperret@...gle.com, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 maobibo@...ngson.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 5/6] KVM: arm64: Allow cacheable stage 2 mapping using
 VMA flags

On 04.07.25 16:04, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2025 at 04:21:10AM +0000, ankita@...dia.com wrote:
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
>> @@ -1681,18 +1681,53 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
>>   	if (is_error_noslot_pfn(pfn))
>>   		return -EFAULT;
>>   
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Check if this is non-struct page memory PFN, and cannot support
>> +	 * CMOs. It could potentially be unsafe to access as cachable.
>> +	 */
>>   	if (vm_flags & (VM_PFNMAP | VM_MIXEDMAP) && !pfn_is_map_memory(pfn)) {
>>   		/*
>> -		 * If the page was identified as device early by looking at
>> -		 * the VMA flags, vma_pagesize is already representing the
>> -		 * largest quantity we can map.  If instead it was mapped
>> -		 * via __kvm_faultin_pfn(), vma_pagesize is set to PAGE_SIZE
>> -		 * and must not be upgraded.
>> -		 *
>> -		 * In both cases, we don't let transparent_hugepage_adjust()
>> -		 * change things at the last minute.
>> +		 * COW VM_PFNMAP is possible when doing a MAP_PRIVATE
>> +		 * /dev/mem mapping on systems that allow such mapping.
>> +		 * Reject such case.
>>   		 */
>> -		s2_force_noncacheable = true;
>> +		if (is_cow_mapping(vm_flags))
>> +			return -EINVAL;
> 
> I still would like an explanation why we need to block this.
> 
> COW PFNMAP is like MIXEDMAP, you end up with a VMA where there is a
> mixture of MMIO and normal pages. Arguably you are supposed to use
> vm_normal_page() not pfn_is_map_memory(), but that seems difficult for
> KVM.
> 
> Given we exclude the cachable case with the pfn_is_map_memory() we
> know this is the non-struct page memory already, so why do we need to
> block the COW?
> 
> I think the basic rule we are going for is that within the VMA the
> non-normal/special PTE have to follow the vma->vm_pgprot while the
> normal pages have to be cachable.
> 
> So if we find a normal page (ie pfn_is_map_memory()) then we know it
> is cachable and s2_force_noncacheable = false. Otherwise we use the
> vm_pgprot to decide if the special PTE is cachable.
> 
> David can you think of any reason to have this is_cow_mapping() test?

I think with that reasoning, it should be fine to drop it.

I think, the COW test made sense when we were talking about limiting it 
to VM_PFNMAP only and simplifying by dropping other checks. Then, it 
would have identified that something is certainly not "normal" memory.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb