linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 3/7] KVM: x86/mmu: Recover TDP MMU NX huge pages using MMU read lock

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: <CALzav=eQWJ-97T7YPt2ikFJ+hPqUSqQ+U_spq8M4vMaQWfasWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2025 11:17:34 -0700
From: David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>
To: James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>
Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, 
	Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/7] KVM: x86/mmu: Recover TDP MMU NX huge pages using
 MMU read lock

On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 2:49 PM James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 2:38 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 28, 2025, David Matlack wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 11:08 AM James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 1:35 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > > > > @@ -7559,8 +7590,17 @@ static void kvm_recover_nx_huge_pages(struct kvm *kvm,
> > > > > >       rcu_read_lock();
> > > > > >
> > > > > >       for ( ; to_zap; --to_zap) {
> > > > > > -             if (list_empty(nx_huge_pages))
> > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> > > > >
> > > > > These #ifdefs still make me sad, but I also still think they're the least awful
> > > > > solution.  And hopefully we will jettison 32-bit sooner than later :-)
> > > >
> > > > Yeah I couldn't come up with anything better. :(
> > >
> > > Could we just move the definition of tdp_mmu_pages_lock outside of
> > > CONFIG_X86_64? The only downside I can think of is slightly larger kvm
> > > structs for 32-bit builds.
> >
> > Hmm, I was going to say "no, because we'd also need to do spin_lock_init()", but
> > obviously spin_(un)lock() will only ever be invoked for 64-bit kernels.  I still
> > don't love the idea of making tdp_mmu_pages_lock visible outside of CONFIG_X86_64,
> > it feels like we're just asking to introduce (likely benign) bugs.
> >
> > Ugh, and I just noticed this as well:
> >
> >   #ifndef CONFIG_X86_64
> >   #define KVM_TDP_MMU -1
> >   #endif
> >
> > Rather than expose kvm->arch.tdp_mmu_pages_lock, what about using a single #ifdef
> > section to bury both is_tdp_mmu and a local kvm->arch.tdp_mmu_pages_lock pointer?
>
> SGTM.
>
> >
> > Alternatively, we could do:
> >
> >         const bool is_tdp_mmu = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_64) && mmu_type != KVM_SHADOW_MMU;
>
> I tried something like this before and it didn't work; my compiler
> still complained. Maybe I didn't do it quite right...
>
> >
> > to avoid referencing KVM_TDP_MMU, but that's quite ugly.  Overall, I think the
> > below strikes the best balance between polluting the code with #ifdefs, and
> > generating robust code.
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > index 52bf6a886bfd..c038d7cd187d 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > @@ -1372,10 +1372,6 @@ enum kvm_mmu_type {
> >         KVM_NR_MMU_TYPES,
> >  };
> >
> > -#ifndef CONFIG_X86_64
> > -#define KVM_TDP_MMU -1
> > -#endif
> > -
> >  struct kvm_arch {
> >         unsigned long n_used_mmu_pages;
> >         unsigned long n_requested_mmu_pages;
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > index a6a1fb42b2d1..e2bde6a5e346 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > @@ -7624,8 +7624,14 @@ static bool kvm_mmu_sp_dirty_logging_enabled(struct kvm *kvm,
> >  static void kvm_recover_nx_huge_pages(struct kvm *kvm,
> >                                       const enum kvm_mmu_type mmu_type)
> >  {
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> > +       const bool is_tdp_mmu = mmu_type == KVM_TDP_MMU;
> > +       spinlock_t *tdp_mmu_pages_lock = &kvm->arch.tdp_mmu_pages_lock;
> > +#else
> > +       const bool is_tdp_mmu = false;
> > +       spinlock_t *tdp_mmu_pages_lock = NULL;
> > +#endif
> >         unsigned long to_zap = nx_huge_pages_to_zap(kvm, mmu_type);
> > -       bool is_tdp_mmu = mmu_type == KVM_TDP_MMU;
> >         struct list_head *nx_huge_pages;
> >         struct kvm_mmu_page *sp;
> >         LIST_HEAD(invalid_list);
> > @@ -7648,15 +7654,12 @@ static void kvm_recover_nx_huge_pages(struct kvm *kvm,
> >         rcu_read_lock();
> >
> >         for ( ; to_zap; --to_zap) {
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> >                 if (is_tdp_mmu)
> > -                       spin_lock(&kvm->arch.tdp_mmu_pages_lock);
> > -#endif
> > +                       spin_lock(tdp_mmu_pages_lock);
> > +
> >                 if (list_empty(nx_huge_pages)) {
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> >                         if (is_tdp_mmu)
> > -                               spin_unlock(&kvm->arch.tdp_mmu_pages_lock);
> > -#endif
> > +                               spin_unlock(tdp_mmu_pages_lock);
> >                         break;
> >                 }
> >
> > @@ -7675,10 +7678,8 @@ static void kvm_recover_nx_huge_pages(struct kvm *kvm,
> >
> >                 unaccount_nx_huge_page(kvm, sp);
> >
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> >                 if (is_tdp_mmu)
> > -                       spin_unlock(&kvm->arch.tdp_mmu_pages_lock);
> > -#endif
> > +                       spin_unlock(tdp_mmu_pages_lock);
> >
> >                 /*
> >                  * Do not attempt to recover any NX Huge Pages that are being
> > --
>
> LGTM! Thanks Sean.

Is the compiler not smart enough to optimize out
kvm->arch.tdp_mmu_pages_lock? (To avoid needing the extra local
variable?) I thought there was some other KVM code that relied on
similar optimizations but I would have to go dig them up to remember.

Either way, this LGTM!