linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] KVM: selftests: Test prefault memory during concurrent memslot removal

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aNQltowMx51v42Bw@google.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 10:09:10 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
Cc: pbonzini@...hat.com, reinette.chatre@...el.com, rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] KVM: selftests: Test prefault memory during
 concurrent memslot removal

On Mon, Sep 15, 2025, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2025, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 08, 2025 at 04:47:23PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2025, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > > +		if (!slot_recreated) {
> > > +			WRITE_ONCE(data.recreate_slot, true);
> > > +			pthread_join(slot_worker, NULL);
> > > +			slot_recreated = true;
> > > +			continue;
> > If delete_slot_worker() invokes vm_mem_region_delete() slowly enough due to
> > scheduling delays, the return value from __vcpu_ioctl() could be 0 with
> > range.size being 0 at this point.
> > 
> > What about checking range.size before continuing?
> > 
> > @@ -120,7 +126,8 @@ static void pre_fault_memory(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 base_gpa, u64 offset,
> >                         WRITE_ONCE(data.recreate_slot, true);
> >                         pthread_join(slot_worker, NULL);
> >                         slot_recreated = true;
> > -                       continue;
> > +                       if (range.size)
> > +                               continue;
> >                 }
> > 
> > 
> > Otherwise, the next __vcpu_ioctl() would return -1 with errno == EINVAL, which
> > will break the assertion below.
> 
> Drat, I missed that kvm_vcpu_pre_fault_memory() returns -EINVAL on a size of '0'
> (see the wrong comment snippet "Either prefaulting already succeeded, in which
> case retrying should also succeed, or retry is needed to get a stable result").
> 
> I'll circle back to this tomorrow.  IIRC, there was a reason I didn't want to
> check range.size in that path, but for the life of me I can't remember why :-/

I'm 99% certain I was worried about false passes, but after working through the
possible scenarios, I don't see any way for bailing on !range.size to result in
missing a KVM bug.  So I'll post a formal patch with the below sqaushed in.

Thanks much!

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/pre_fault_memory_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/pre_fault_memory_test.c
index 2dbabf4b0b15..f04768c1d2e4 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/pre_fault_memory_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/pre_fault_memory_test.c
@@ -112,15 +112,24 @@ static void pre_fault_memory(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 base_gpa, u64 offset,
                 * slot was deleted) and/or to prepare for the next testcase.
                 * Wait for the worker to exit so that the next invocation of
                 * prefaulting is guaranteed to complete (assuming no KVM bugs).
-                * Always retry prefaulting to simply the retry logic.  Either
-                * prefaulting already succeeded, in which case retrying should
-                * also succeed, or retry is needed to get a stable result.
                 */
                if (!slot_recreated) {
                        WRITE_ONCE(data.recreate_slot, true);
                        pthread_join(slot_worker, NULL);
                        slot_recreated = true;
-                       continue;
+
+                       /*
+                        * Retry prefaulting to get a stable result, i.e. to
+                        * avoid seeing random EAGAIN failures.  Don't retry if
+                        * prefaulting already succeeded, as KVM disallows
+                        * prefaulting with size=0, i.e. blindly retrying would
+                        * result in test failures due to EINVAL.  KVM should
+                        * always return success if all bytes are prefaulted,
+                        * i.e. there is no need to guard against EAGAIN being
+                        * returned.
+                        */
+                       if (range.size)
+                               continue;
                }
 
                /*