All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
	Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
	Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
	Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] KVM: x86/mmu: Fix write-protection of PTs mapped by the TDP MMU
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2022 23:38:01 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YeIJWZ62q3rybAP2@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220113233020.3986005-2-dmatlack@google.com>

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022, David Matlack wrote:
> When the TDP MMU is write-protection GFNs for page table protection (as
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                      write-protecting

> opposed to for dirty logging, or due to the HVA not being writable), it
> checks if the SPTE is already write-protected and if so skips modifying
> the SPTE and the TLB flush.
> 
> This behavior is incorrect because the SPTE may be write-protected for
> dirty logging. This implies that the SPTE could be locklessly be made

Spurious "be" between could and locklessly.

Hmm, it doesn't imply anything, the behavior of MMU-writable is quite explicit.
If the bug occurs, then _that_ implies the SPTE was write-protected for dirty
logging, otherwise MMU-Writable would have been '0' due to HOST-Writable also
being '0'.

I think what you're trying to say is:

  This behavior is incorrect because it fails to check if the SPTE is
  write-protected for page table protection, i.e. fails to check that
  MMU-writable is '0'.  If the SPTE was write-protected for dirty logging
  but not page table protection, the SPTE could locklessly be made
  writable, and vCPUs could still be running with writable mappings
  cached in their TLB.

> writable on the next write access, and that vCPUs could still be running
> with writable SPTEs cached in their TLB.

Nit, it's technically the mapping, not the SPTE itself, that's cached in the TLB.

> Fix this by only skipping setting the SPTE if the SPTE is already
> write-protected *and* MMU-writable is already clear.

Might also be worth adding:

  Note, technically checking only MMU-writable would suffice, as a SPTE
  cannot be writable without MMU-writable being set, but check both to
  be paranoid and because it arguably yields more readable code.

Pedantry aside,

Reviewed-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>

> Fixes: 46044f72c382 ("kvm: x86/mmu: Support write protection for nesting in tdp MMU")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
> index 7b1bc816b7c3..bc9e3553fba2 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
> @@ -1442,12 +1442,12 @@ static bool write_protect_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_mmu_page *root,
>  		    !is_last_spte(iter.old_spte, iter.level))
>  			continue;
>  
> -		if (!is_writable_pte(iter.old_spte))
> -			break;
> -
>  		new_spte = iter.old_spte &
>  			~(PT_WRITABLE_MASK | shadow_mmu_writable_mask);
>  
> +		if (new_spte == iter.old_spte)
> +			break;
> +
>  		tdp_mmu_set_spte(kvm, &iter, new_spte);
>  		spte_set = true;
>  	}
> 
> base-commit: fea31d1690945e6dd6c3e89ec5591490857bc3d4
> -- 
> 2.34.1.703.g22d0c6ccf7-goog
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2022-01-14 23:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-01-13 23:30 [PATCH v2 0/4] KVM: x86/mmu: Fix write-protection bug in the TDP MMU David Matlack
2022-01-13 23:30 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] KVM: x86/mmu: Fix write-protection of PTs mapped by " David Matlack
2022-01-14 23:38   ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2022-01-13 23:30 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] KVM: x86/mmu: Clear MMU-writable during changed_pte notifier David Matlack
2022-01-14 23:41   ` Sean Christopherson
2022-01-13 23:30 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] KVM: x86/mmu: Document and enforce MMU-writable and Host-writable invariants David Matlack
2022-01-14 22:29   ` Sean Christopherson
2022-01-18 17:45     ` David Matlack
2022-01-13 23:30 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] KVM: x86/mmu: Improve TLB flush comment in kvm_mmu_slot_remove_write_access() David Matlack
2022-01-14 23:58   ` Sean Christopherson
2022-01-17 17:59 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] KVM: x86/mmu: Fix write-protection bug in the TDP MMU Paolo Bonzini
2022-01-18 17:38   ` David Matlack
2022-01-18 17:41     ` Paolo Bonzini

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=YeIJWZ62q3rybAP2@google.com \
    --to=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=bgardon@google.com \
    --cc=dmatlack@google.com \
    --cc=jmattson@google.com \
    --cc=joro@8bytes.org \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
    --cc=wanpengli@tencent.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.