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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C593C47089 for ; Thu, 27 May 2021 07:50:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20183613BE for ; Thu, 27 May 2021 07:50:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232870AbhE0HwI (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 May 2021 03:52:08 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:53564 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229579AbhE0HwH (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 May 2021 03:52:07 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EC7E11D4; Thu, 27 May 2021 00:50:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.179] (unknown [172.31.20.19]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7C3F53F73B; Thu, 27 May 2021 00:50:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 7/8] KVM: arm64: ioctl to fetch/store tags in a guest To: Catalin Marinas Cc: Marc Zyngier , Will Deacon , James Morse , Julien Thierry , Suzuki K Poulose , kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dave Martin , Mark Rutland , Thomas Gleixner , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Juan Quintela , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , Richard Henderson , Peter Maydell , Haibo Xu , Andrew Jones References: <20210517123239.8025-1-steven.price@arm.com> <20210517123239.8025-8-steven.price@arm.com> <20210520120556.GC12251@arm.com> <20210520172713.GF12251@arm.com> <5eec330f-63c0-2af8-70f8-ba9b643e2558@arm.com> <20210524181129.GI14645@arm.com> From: Steven Price Message-ID: <58345eca-6e5f-0faa-e47d-e9149d73f6c5@arm.com> Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 08:50:30 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210524181129.GI14645@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 24/05/2021 19:11, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 10:42:09AM +0100, Steven Price wrote: >> On 20/05/2021 18:27, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 04:58:01PM +0100, Steven Price wrote: >>>> On 20/05/2021 13:05, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>>>> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 01:32:38PM +0100, Steven Price wrote: >>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c >>>>>> index e89a5e275e25..4b6c83beb75d 100644 >>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c >>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c >>>>>> @@ -1309,6 +1309,65 @@ static int kvm_vm_ioctl_set_device_addr(struct kvm *kvm, >>>>>> } >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> +static int kvm_vm_ioctl_mte_copy_tags(struct kvm *kvm, >>>>>> + struct kvm_arm_copy_mte_tags *copy_tags) >>>>>> +{ >>>>>> + gpa_t guest_ipa = copy_tags->guest_ipa; >>>>>> + size_t length = copy_tags->length; >>>>>> + void __user *tags = copy_tags->addr; >>>>>> + gpa_t gfn; >>>>>> + bool write = !(copy_tags->flags & KVM_ARM_TAGS_FROM_GUEST); >>>>>> + int ret = 0; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + if (copy_tags->reserved[0] || copy_tags->reserved[1]) >>>>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + if (copy_tags->flags & ~KVM_ARM_TAGS_FROM_GUEST) >>>>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + if (length & ~PAGE_MASK || guest_ipa & ~PAGE_MASK) >>>>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + gfn = gpa_to_gfn(guest_ipa); >>>>>> + >>>>>> + mutex_lock(&kvm->slots_lock); >>>>>> + >>>>>> + while (length > 0) { >>>>>> + kvm_pfn_t pfn = gfn_to_pfn_prot(kvm, gfn, write, NULL); >>>>>> + void *maddr; >>>>>> + unsigned long num_tags = PAGE_SIZE / MTE_GRANULE_SIZE; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + if (is_error_noslot_pfn(pfn)) { >>>>>> + ret = -EFAULT; >>>>>> + goto out; >>>>>> + } >>>>>> + >>>>>> + maddr = page_address(pfn_to_page(pfn)); >>>>>> + >>>>>> + if (!write) { >>>>>> + num_tags = mte_copy_tags_to_user(tags, maddr, num_tags); >>>>>> + kvm_release_pfn_clean(pfn); >>>>> >>>>> Do we need to check if PG_mte_tagged is set? If the page was not faulted >>>>> into the guest address space but the VMM has the page, does the >>>>> gfn_to_pfn_prot() guarantee that a kvm_set_spte_gfn() was called? If >>>>> not, this may read stale tags. >>>> >>>> Ah, I hadn't thought about that... No I don't believe gfn_to_pfn_prot() >>>> will fault it into the guest. >>> >>> It doesn't indeed. What it does is a get_user_pages() but it's not of >>> much help since the VMM pte wouldn't be tagged (we would have solved >>> lots of problems if we required PROT_MTE in the VMM...) >> >> Sadly it solves some problems and creates others :( > > I had some (random) thoughts on how to make things simpler, maybe. I > think most of these races would have been solved if we required PROT_MTE > in the VMM but this has an impact on the VMM if it wants to use MTE > itself. If such requirement was in place, all KVM needed to do is check > PG_mte_tagged. > > So what we actually need is a set_pte_at() in the VMM to clear the tags > and set PG_mte_tagged. Currently, we only do this if the memory type is > tagged (PROT_MTE) but it's not strictly necessary. > > As an optimisation for normal programs, we don't want to do this all the > time but the visible behaviour wouldn't change (well, maybe for ptrace > slightly). However, it doesn't mean we couldn't for a VMM, with an > opt-in via prctl(). This would add a MMCF_MTE_TAG_INIT bit (couldn't > think of a better name) to mm_context_t.flags and set_pte_at() would > behave as if the pte was tagged without actually mapping the memory in > user space as tagged (protection flags not changed). Pages that don't > support tagging are still safe, just some unnecessary ignored tag > writes. This would need to be set before the mmap() for the guest > memory. > > If we want finer-grained control we'd have to store this information in > the vma flags, in addition to VM_MTE (e.g. VM_MTE_TAG_INIT) but without > affecting the actual memory type. The easiest would be another pte bit, > though we are short on them. A more intrusive (not too bad) approach is > to introduce a set_pte_at_vma() and read the flags directly in the arch > code. In most places where set_pte_at() is called on a user mm, the vma > is also available. > > Anyway, I'm not saying we go this route, just thinking out loud, get > some opinions. Does get_user_pages() actually end up calling set_pte_at() normally? If not then on the normal user_mem_abort() route although we can easily check VM_MTE_TAG_INIT there's no obvious place to hook in to ensure that the pages actually allocated have the PG_mte_tagged flag. I'm also not sure how well this would work with the MMU notifiers path in KVM. With MMU notifiers (i.e. the VMM replacing a page in the memslot) there's not even an obvious hook to enforce the VMA flag. So I think we'd end up with something like the sanitise_mte_tags() function to at least check that the PG_mte_tagged flag is set on the pages (assuming that the trigger for the MMU notifier has done the corresponding set_pte_at()). Admittedly this might close the current race documented there. It also feels wrong to me to tie this to a process with prctl(), it seems much more normal to implement this as a new mprotect() flag as this is really a memory property not a process property. And I think we'll find some scary corner cases if we try to associate everything back to a process - although I can't instantly think of anything that will actually break. >>> Another thing I forgot to ask, what's guaranteeing that the page >>> supports tags? Does this ioctl ensure that it would attempt the tag >>> copying from some device mapping? Do we need some kvm_is_device_pfn() >>> check? I guess ZONE_DEVICE memory we just refuse to map in an earlier >>> patch. >> >> Hmm, nothing much. While reads are now fine (the memory won't have >> PG_mte_tagged), writes could potentially happen on ZONE_DEVICE memory. > > I don't think it's a problem for writes either as the host wouldn't map > such memory as tagged. It's just that it returns zeros and writes are > ignored, so we could instead return an error (I haven't checked your > latest series yet). The latest series uses pfn_to_online_page() to reject ZONE_DEVICE early. >>>> } else { >>>> num_tags = mte_copy_tags_from_user(maddr, tags, >>>> MTE_GRANULES_PER_PAGE); >>>> kvm_release_pfn_dirty(pfn); >>>> } >>>> >>>> if (num_tags != MTE_GRANULES_PER_PAGE) { >>>> ret = -EFAULT; >>>> goto out; >>>> } >>>> >>>> if (write) >>>> test_and_set_bit(PG_mte_tagged, &page->flags); >>> >>> I think a set_bit() would do, I doubt it's any more efficient. But why >> >> I'd seen test_and_set_bit() used elsewhere (I forget where now) as a >> slightly more efficient approach. It complies down to a READ_ONCE and a >> conditional atomic, vs a single non-conditional atomic. But I don't have >> any actual data on the performance and this isn't a hot path, so I'll >> switch to the more obvious set_bit(). > > Yeah, I think I've seen this as well. Anyway, it's probably lost in the > noise of tag writing here. > Agreed. Thanks, Steve