Re: [PATCH] KVM: s390: Fix lockdep issue in vm memop

[Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>]

On 3/23/22 09:52, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
> On 3/23/22 08:58, Janosch Frank wrote:
>> On 3/22/22 16:32, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
>>> Issuing a memop on a protected vm does not make sense,
>>
>> Issuing a vm memop on a protected vm...
>>
>> The cpu memop still makes sense, no?
> 
> The vcpu memop does hold the vcpu->lock, so no lockdep issue.
> If you issue a vcpu memop while enabling protected virtualization,
> the memop might find that the vcpu is not protected, while other vcpus
> might already be, but I don't think there's a way to create secure memory
> concurrent with the memop.

I just wanted you to make this a bit more specific since we now have vm 
and vcpu memops. vm memops don't make sense for pv guests but vcpu ones 
are needed to access the sida.

>>
>>> neither is the memory readable/writable, nor does it make sense to check
>>> storage keys. This is why the ioctl will return -EINVAL when it detects
>>> the vm to be protected. However, in order to ensure that the vm cannot
>>> become protected during the memop, the kvm->lock would need to be taken
>>> for the duration of the ioctl. This is also required because
>>> kvm_s390_pv_is_protected asserts that the lock must be held.
>>> Instead, don't try to prevent this. If user space enables secure
>>> execution concurrently with a memop it must accecpt the possibility of
>>> the memop failing.
>>> Still check if the vm is currently protected, but without locking and
>>> consider it a heuristic.
>>>
>>> Fixes: ef11c9463ae0 ("KVM: s390: Add vm IOCTL for key checked guest absolute memory access")
>>> Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>
>>
>> Makes sense to me.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
>>
>>> ---
>>>    arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 11 ++++++++++-
>>>    1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>>> index ca96f84db2cc..53adbe86a68f 100644
>>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>>> @@ -2385,7 +2385,16 @@ static int kvm_s390_vm_mem_op(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_s390_mem_op *mop)
>>>            return -EINVAL;
>>>        if (mop->size > MEM_OP_MAX_SIZE)
>>>            return -E2BIG;
>>> -    if (kvm_s390_pv_is_protected(kvm))
>>> +    /*
>>> +     * This is technically a heuristic only, if the kvm->lock is not
>>> +     * taken, it is not guaranteed that the vm is/remains non-protected.
>>> +     * This is ok from a kernel perspective, wrongdoing is detected
>>> +     * on the access, -EFAULT is returned and the vm may crash the
>>> +     * next time it accesses the memory in question.
>>> +     * There is no sane usecase to do switching and a memop on two
>>> +     * different CPUs at the same time.
>>> +     */
>>> +    if (kvm_s390_pv_get_handle(kvm))
>>>            return -EINVAL;
>>>        if (mop->flags & KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_SKEY_PROTECTION) {
>>>            if (access_key_invalid(mop->key))
>>>
>>> base-commit: c9b8fecddb5bb4b67e351bbaeaa648a6f7456912
>>
>