From: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@kernel.org>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,
Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com>,
Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@arm.com>,
Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] KVM: arm64: MTE: Use stage-2 NoTagAccess memory attribute if supported
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:01:18 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <yq5afrl3cjrd.fsf@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Z4e04P1bQlFBDHo7@arm.com>
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 12:47:54PM -0800, Peter Collingbourne wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 11:09 AM Catalin Marinas
>> <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jan 11, 2025 at 06:49:55PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> > > Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> writes:
>> > > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 04:30:21PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm) wrote:
>> > > >> Currently, the kernel won't start a guest if the MTE feature is enabled
>> > >
>> > > ...
>> > >
>> > > >> @@ -2152,7 +2162,8 @@ int kvm_arch_prepare_memory_region(struct kvm *kvm,
>> > > >> if (!vma)
>> > > >> break;
>> > > >>
>> > > >> - if (kvm_has_mte(kvm) && !kvm_vma_mte_allowed(vma)) {
>> > > >> + if (kvm_has_mte(kvm) &&
>> > > >> + !kvm_has_mte_perm(kvm) && !kvm_vma_mte_allowed(vma)) {
>> > > >> ret = -EINVAL;
>> > > >> break;
>> > > >> }
>> > > >
>> > > > I don't think we should change this, or at least not how it's done above
>> > > > (Suzuki raised a related issue internally relaxing this for VM_PFNMAP).
>> > > >
>> > > > For standard memory slots, we want to reject them upfront rather than
>> > > > deferring to the fault handler. An example here is file mmap() passed as
>> > > > standard RAM to the VM. It's an unnecessary change in behaviour IMHO.
>> > > > I'd only relax this for VM_PFNMAP mappings further down in this
>> > > > function (and move the VM_PFNMAP check above; see Suzuki's internal
>> > > > patch, unless he posted it publicly already).
>> > >
>> > > But we want to handle memslots backed by pagecache pages for virtio-shm
>> > > here (virtiofs dax use case).
>> >
>> > Ah, I forgot about this use case. So with virtiofs DAX, does a host page
>> > cache page (host VMM mmap()) get mapped directly into the guest as a
>> > separate memory slot? In this case, the host vma would not have
>> > VM_MTE_ALLOWED set.
>> >
>> > > With MTE_PERM, we can essentially skip the
>> > > kvm_vma_mte_allowed(vma) check because we handle all types in the fault
>> > > handler.
>> >
>> > This was pretty much the early behaviour when we added KVM support for
>> > MTE, allow !VM_MTE_ALLOWED and trap them later. However, we disallowed
>> > VM_SHARED because of some non-trivial race. Commit d89585fbb308 ("KVM:
>> > arm64: unify the tests for VMAs in memslots when MTE is enabled")
>> > changed this behaviour and the VM_MTE_ALLOWED check happens upfront. A
>> > subsequent commit removed the VM_SHARED check.
>> >
>> > It's a minor ABI change but I'm trying to figure out why we needed this
>> > upfront check rather than simply dropping the VM_SHARED check. Adding
>> > Peter in case he remembers. I can't see any race if we simply skipped
>> > this check altogether, irrespective of FEAT_MTE_PERM.
>>
>> I don't see a problem with removing the upfront check. The reason I
>> kept the check was IIRC just that there was already a check there and
>> its logic needed to be adjusted for my VM_SHARED changes.
>
> Prior to commit d89585fbb308, kvm_arch_prepare_memory_region() only
> rejected a memory slot if VM_SHARED was set. This commit unified the
> checking with user_mem_abort(), with slots being rejected if
> (!VM_MTE_ALLOWED || VM_SHARED). A subsequent commit dropped the
> VM_SHARED check, so we ended up with memory slots being rejected only if
> !VM_MTE_ALLOWED (of course, if kvm_has_mte()). This wasn't the case
> before the VM_SHARED relaxation.
>
> So if you don't remember any strong reason for this change, I think we
> should go back to the original behaviour of deferring the VM_MTE_ALLOWED
> check to user_mem_abort() (and still permitting VM_SHARED).
>
Something as below?
From 466237a6f0a165152c157ab4a73f34c400cffe34 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)" <aneesh.kumar@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2025 14:21:52 +0530
Subject: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Drop mte_allowed check during memslot creation
Before commit d89585fbb308 ("KVM: arm64: unify the tests for VMAs in
memslots when MTE is enabled"), kvm_arch_prepare_memory_region() only
rejected a memory slot if VM_SHARED was set. This commit unified the
checking with user_mem_abort(), with slots being rejected if either
VM_MTE_ALLOWED is not set or VM_SHARED set. A subsequent commit
c911f0d46879 ("KVM: arm64: permit all VM_MTE_ALLOWED mappings with MTE
enabled") dropped the VM_SHARED check, so we ended up with memory slots
being rejected if VM_MTE_ALLOWED is not set. This wasn't the case before
the commit d89585fbb308. The rejection of the memory slot with VM_SHARED
set was done to avoid a race condition with the test/set of the
PG_mte_tagged flag. Before Commit d77e59a8fccd ("arm64: mte: Lock a page
for MTE tag initialization") the kernel avoided allowing MTE with shared
pages, thereby preventing two tasks sharing a page from setting up the
PG_mte_tagged flag racily.
Commit d77e59a8fccd ("arm64: mte: Lock a page for MTE tag
initialization") further updated the locking so that the kernel
allows VM_SHARED mapping with MTE. With this commit, we can enable
memslot creation with VM_SHARED VMA mapping.
This patch results in a minor tweak to the ABI. We now allow creating
memslots that don't have the VM_MTE_ALLOWED flag set. If the guest uses
such a memslot with Allocation Tags, the kernel will generate -EFAULT.
ie, instead of failing early, we now fail later during KVM_RUN.
This change is needed because, without it, users are not able to use MTE
with VFIO passthrough, as shown below (kvmtool VMM).
[ 617.921030] vfio-pci 0000:01:00.0: resetting
[ 618.024719] vfio-pci 0000:01:00.0: reset done
Error: 0000:01:00.0: failed to register region with KVM
Warning: [0abc:aced] Error activating emulation for BAR 0
Error: 0000:01:00.0: failed to configure regions
Warning: Failed init: vfio__init
Fatal: Initialisation failed
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm) <aneesh.kumar@kernel.org>
---
arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c | 5 -----
1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
index 007dda958eab..610becd8574e 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
@@ -2146,11 +2146,6 @@ int kvm_arch_prepare_memory_region(struct kvm *kvm,
if (!vma)
break;
- if (kvm_has_mte(kvm) && !kvm_vma_mte_allowed(vma)) {
- ret = -EINVAL;
- break;
- }
-
if (vma->vm_flags & VM_PFNMAP) {
/* IO region dirty page logging not allowed */
if (new->flags & KVM_MEM_LOG_DIRTY_PAGES) {
--
2.43.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-28 10:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-01-10 11:00 [PATCH v2 0/7] Add support for NoTagAccess memory attribute Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)
2025-01-10 11:00 ` [PATCH v2 1/7] arm64: Update the values to binary from hex Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)
2025-01-10 13:11 ` Catalin Marinas
2025-01-10 11:00 ` [PATCH v2 2/7] KVM: arm64: MTE: Update code comments Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)
2025-01-10 13:11 ` Catalin Marinas
2025-01-10 11:00 ` [PATCH v2 3/7] arm64: cpufeature: add Allocation Tag Access Permission (MTE_PERM) feature Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)
2025-01-10 13:15 ` Catalin Marinas
2025-01-10 11:00 ` [PATCH v2 4/7] KVM: arm64: MTE: Add KVM_CAP_ARM_MTE_PERM Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)
2025-01-10 11:00 ` [PATCH v2 5/7] KVM: arm64: MTE: Use stage-2 NoTagAccess memory attribute if supported Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)
2025-01-10 18:20 ` Catalin Marinas
2025-01-11 13:19 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2025-01-13 19:09 ` Catalin Marinas
2025-01-13 20:47 ` Peter Collingbourne
2025-01-14 9:55 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2025-01-15 13:15 ` Catalin Marinas
2025-01-28 10:31 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V [this message]
2025-01-29 14:38 ` Catalin Marinas
2025-01-10 11:00 ` [PATCH v2 6/7] KVM: arm64: MTE: Nested guest support Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)
2025-01-10 11:00 ` [PATCH v2 7/7] KVM: arm64: Split some of the kvm_pgtable_prot bits into separate defines Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)
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=yq5afrl3cjrd.fsf@kernel.org \
--to=aneesh.kumar@kernel.org \
--cc=Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=joey.gouly@arm.com \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
--cc=pcc@google.com \
--cc=steven.price@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=yuzenghui@huawei.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.