From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 338CDC433EF for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 14:08:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S237256AbiD0OLi (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Apr 2022 10:11:38 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:51834 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S237215AbiD0OLg (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Apr 2022 10:11:36 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-x1035.google.com (mail-pj1-x1035.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1035]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B89014BBA1 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 07:08:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x1035.google.com with SMTP id r9so1579103pjo.5 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 07:08:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=wcKBX/x7aHbwy2eQa/0b3oj/jc0z2fTHrAAn+gTDCRc=; b=cbQDMg9fNNcB4Lp8zQBGRiZIVuDVCRQBnuWm0ShFQvBTPTyKeBHwxnZEZ2Qm5ge2V/ /A3xdNy/M1a5/U74cSqRRBxYfwVLFs8ZmroqKiPQyvWubn5q5GZMqkcDZ1Jkwu4tNREX VxngRXDJgMRyrMVbJP6lhs/vPVcl/H6HPtEryQUcGXDOlNpB0UTjLaIy1tUxHDGnjN7f VNNA3TYpSs5UOPWE7zg0KYHTUdCTZOQhzKnw5gZ1nNqN1FZnO8O1RPg5alkEfgyFRgkK hObGk09T5NHAiQ6nCJxlaR3/hWY60yA4oN+4DyoYk9I0A+NnhBS8f+n1MCMfe+OY2K0p NulA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=wcKBX/x7aHbwy2eQa/0b3oj/jc0z2fTHrAAn+gTDCRc=; b=eVdvDuy2da6Z8LDIpPF+9h+ATjSgqdn3BF+Vq+mEXGhQ1ZVlUk9yGkpyTeTp4RwgmW jXQdSCWP43RyVRPffww7HcbS0DTC7c5NB28ZX4TLSOIxQcZA2aJf5EMp8bHSuTCqFj3m rw796aBARHkJAQlCshza8UXEIhlF3Twz9joX8fmxHDT8lj1H+CJqbQUGpcE2Ek5xFntD nE3+CMaQoa+19tOklsb/0Ak57W8vDFI48gTBKI7W3eXIAPZK4Qp6RpQhY8xHBlUweHgO Tr5+1PEuEoJlsM46DUwN3bA4hjBUT1qF13VTweVaK9eQD10bcBm5cwWOQNRr4QljbSUR TY3Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Abl7ypgKzxhdV3pdboLssUgyrKOSIPQuXVFP8ySHD5pykwQs4 Jf36Bfn4XwevyliVx9klL4Zqwg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxMFkyeA50O/t8Mv2R7XyttGzuDp/Jy9gQJ5gEhceX+lGxbN7XZKDrSvie2PtooYYn/Uez/vQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:8e81:b0:158:fd26:1b95 with SMTP id bg1-20020a1709028e8100b00158fd261b95mr28443970plb.142.1651068504045; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 07:08:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com (157.214.185.35.bc.googleusercontent.com. [35.185.214.157]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z23-20020a17090a609700b001d93118827asm2969315pji.57.2022.04.27.07.08.23 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 27 Apr 2022 07:08:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 14:08:20 +0000 From: Sean Christopherson To: Mingwei Zhang Cc: Paolo Bonzini , Vitaly Kuznetsov , Wanpeng Li , Jim Mattson , Joerg Roedel , kvm , LKML , Ben Gardon , David Matlack Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86/mmu: add lockdep check before lookup_address_in_mm() Message-ID: References: <7597fe2c-ce04-0e21-bd6c-4051d7d5101d@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 26, 2022, Mingwei Zhang wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 6:30 PM Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022, Mingwei Zhang wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 6:16 PM Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022, Mingwei Zhang wrote: > > > > > > I completely agree that lookup_address() and friends are unnecessarily fragile, > > > > > > but I think that attempting to harden them to fix this KVM bug will open a can > > > > > > of worms and end up delaying getting KVM fixed. > > > > > > > > > > So basically, we need to: > > > > > - choose perf_get_page_size() instead of using any of the > > > > > lookup_address*() in mm. > > > > > - add a wrapper layer to adapt: 1) irq disabling/enabling and 2) size > > > > > -> level translation. > > > > > > > > > > Agree? > > > > > > > > Drat, I didn't see that it returns the page size, not the level. That's a bit > > > > unfortunate. It definitely makes me less averse to fixing lookup_address_in_pgd() > > > > > > > > Hrm. I guess since we know there's at least one broken user, and in theory > > > > fixing lookup_address_in_pgd() should do no harm to users that don't need protection, > > > > it makes sense to just fix lookup_address_in_pgd() and see if the x86 maintainers > > > > push back. > > > > > > Yeah, fixing lookup_address_in_pgd() should be cleaner(), since the > > > page fault usage case does not need irq save/restore. But the other > > > one needs it. So, we can easily fix the function with READ_ONCE and > > > lockless staff. But wrapping the function with irq save/restore from > > > the KVM side. > > > > I think it makes sense to do the save/restore in lookup_address_in_pgd(). The > > Those helpers are exported, so odds are good there are broken users that will > > benefit from fixing all paths. > > no, lookup_address_in_pgd() is probably just broken for KVM. In other > call sites, some may already disable IRQ, so doing that again inside > lookup_address_in_pgd() will be bad. No, it's not bad. local_irq_save/restore() intended preciesly for cases where IRQs need to be disabled but IRQs may or may not have already been disabled by the caller. PUSHF+POPF is not expensive relatively speaking, > I am looking at here: > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/arch/arm/kernel/traps.c#L304 That's arm code, lookup_address_in_pgd() is x86 specific. :-) That said, I'm sure there exists at least one caller that runs with IRQs disabled. But as above, it's not a problem. > so, the save/restore are done in oops_begin() and oops_end(), which is > wrapping show_fault_oops() that calls lookup_address_in_pgd(). > > So, I think we need to ensure the READ_ONCE. > > hmm, regarding the lockless macros, Paolo is right, for x86 it makes > no difference. s390 seems to have a different implementation, but > kvm_mmu_max_mapping_level() as well as host_pfn_mapping_level are both > functions in x86 mmu. Yep, all of this is x86 specific.