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=-13.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no 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 92A72C47096 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 19:47:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 086AC613C9 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 19:47:27 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 086AC613C9 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 82FB46B0036; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 15:47:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 7B8EE6B006C; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 15:47:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 5E50C6B006E; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 15:47:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0076.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.76]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28FD96B0036 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 15:47:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin18.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEEF4180AD801 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 19:47:25 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78213446850.18.E9A3934 Received: from mail-pf1-f181.google.com (mail-pf1-f181.google.com [209.85.210.181]) by imf30.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DA88E005F3D for ; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 19:47:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf1-f181.google.com with SMTP id h12so2868647pfe.2 for ; Thu, 03 Jun 2021 12:47:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=rTqsvMxg8iY/62t/zYCdvRt2W1Pb7CHUIdhxBbw8tpE=; b=FW7Eb4p831muffnjSdriN3BohwIcDXxCGHVl/h5kYVtxHSY5vsuqUHE4fX1jjyDOGK TZDiqbncT+fDnNI2lMf033NjCx+bvmM6y/FvIdzaayiVRO3Re1rYJcQ0+OnXCCOGIN6K hNxXj7bYwEqcyxmjmB47B6fdBPTVfw9nIz+aR9mErx+kp9AyZ/C6/vUmhbDUpAMxqhZn esfYNyTGurZmxsuKGIYucGp6VjYx75UEDu2lqCTBU4ChcaZTFCSp+zM7vFzFEA7FVvLF s25T9WYbIi6bIzd2vB19QyjydBcYu09c0+lWNt+XHDZVFDkUy54HYH6eLxi+MADTGjJQ lUHw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=rTqsvMxg8iY/62t/zYCdvRt2W1Pb7CHUIdhxBbw8tpE=; b=N0bIdPk13ORxoChZK0MQ+puOU7ij84WMu3SKFRPkLwsjhhCcQKYk47Vnv0YPNfD8iK g0ab5E9TIxPHnfekFK8BEHmJSrYClKX6CAYmQO9Z6PmBRNvurRGozQu+ftI4ojahHP3Q cEsvndnhPuuBalGsMwIN6A7ODt7nDmOuPlHyQoiEgQb119lX/x0VYEg5y9VBS62STPZy 0edsqCop0ESYghhdHRxwdJ4p5UzoWNnfk+MOelj41pPpcYKd7cejhHPwpXYk8oM2Xsqk u+0azYH+ZpAeg68hB6K8OcBVD7GWAfKpvq6dJUEo9B7HxKvoafSQS6jiF153MJWXSe6A uAog== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532N04ksMG90FXapLzz4+8Z5Cw5XXd+fKLeKf/O9Rvpv1Lxl8Qs1 +d3+UalgbQe4yZUu06oYSfpgqw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxhF64YHsCWOyX97tbDq6G+PxckYe9jHKy8bbjgWnu7z7A7snBRu3yLRamBxVQRKXgZ0AmwpQ== X-Received: by 2002:a65:528d:: with SMTP id y13mr1107082pgp.276.1622749617624; Thu, 03 Jun 2021 12:46:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com (240.111.247.35.bc.googleusercontent.com. [35.247.111.240]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m134sm3035801pfd.148.2021.06.03.12.46.56 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 03 Jun 2021 12:46:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 19:46:52 +0000 From: Sean Christopherson To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Dave Hansen , Andy Lutomirski , Peter Zijlstra , Jim Mattson , David Rientjes , "Edgecombe, Rick P" , "Kleen, Andi" , "Yamahata, Isaku" , Erdem Aktas , Steve Rutherford , Peter Gonda , David Hildenbrand , Chao Peng , x86@kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFCv2 13/13] KVM: unmap guest memory using poisoned pages Message-ID: References: <20210419185354.v3rgandtrel7bzjj@box> <20210419225755.nsrtjfvfcqscyb6m@box.shutemov.name> <20210521123148.a3t4uh4iezm6ax47@box> <20210531200712.qjxghakcaj4s6ara@box.shutemov.name> <20210602233353.gxq35yxluhas5knp@box> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210602233353.gxq35yxluhas5knp@box> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 9DA88E005F3D Authentication-Results: imf30.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=google.com header.s=20161025 header.b=FW7Eb4p8; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=google.com; spf=pass (imf30.hostedemail.com: domain of seanjc@google.com designates 209.85.210.181 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=seanjc@google.com X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 X-Stat-Signature: ku1pr8dgpdsgu7a3r88mhrmifa47sa96 X-HE-Tag: 1622749630-927712 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, Jun 03, 2021, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 05:51:02PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > Omitting FOLL_GUEST for shared memory doesn't look like a right approach. > > > IIUC, it would require the kernel to track what memory is share and what > > > private, which defeat the purpose of the rework. I would rather enforce > > > !PageGuest() when share SEPT is populated in addition to enforcing > > > PageGuest() fro private SEPT. > > > > Isn't that what omitting FOLL_GUEST would accomplish? For shared memory, > > including mapping memory into the shared EPT, KVM will omit FOLL_GUEST and thus > > require the memory to be readable/writable according to the guest access type. > > Ah. I guess I see what you're saying: we can pipe down the shared bit from > GPA from direct_page_fault() (or whatever handles the fault) down to > hva_to_pfn_slow() and omit FOLL_GUEST if the shared bit is set. Right? Yep. > I guest it's doable, but codeshuffling going to be ugly. It shouldn't be too horrific. If it is horrific, I'd be more than happy to refactor the flow before hand to collect the hva_to_pfn() params into a struct so that adding a "private" flag is less painful. There is already TDX-related work to do similar cleanup in the x86-specific code. https://lkml.kernel.org/r/cover.1618914692.git.isaku.yamahata@intel.com > > By definition, that excludes PageGuest() because PageGuest() pages must always > > be unmapped, e.g. PROTNONE. And for private EPT, because PageGuest() is always > > PROTNONE or whatever, it will require FOLL_GUEST to retrieve the PTE/PMD/Pxx. > > > > On a semi-related topic, I don't think can_follow_write_pte() is the correct > > place to hook PageGuest(). TDX's S-EPT has a quirk where all private guest > > memory must be mapped writable, but that quirk doesn't hold true for non-TDX > > guests. It should be legal to map private guest memory as read-only. > > Hm. The point of the change in can_follow_write_pte() is to only allow to > write to a PageGuest() page if FOLL_GUEST is used and the mapping is > writable. Without the change gup(FOLL_GUEST|FOLL_WRITE) would fail. > > It doesn't prevent using read-only guest mappings as read-only. But if you > want to write to it it has to writable (in addtion to FOLL_GUEST). 100% agree that the page needs to be host-writable to be mapped as writable. What I was pointing out is that if FOLL_WRITE is not set, gup() will never check the PageGuest() exemption (moot point until the protnone check is fixed), and more importantly that the FOLL_GUEST check is orthogonal to the FOLL_WRITE check. In other words, I would expect the code to look something ike: if (PageGuest()) { if (!(flags & FOLL_GUEST)) { pte_unmap_unlock(ptep, ptl); return NULL; } } else if ((flags & FOLL_NUMA) && pte_protnone(pte)) { goto no_page; } > > And I believe the below snippet in follow_page_pte() will be problematic > > too, since FOLL_NUMA is added unless FOLL_FORCE is set. I suspect the > > correct approach is to handle FOLL_GUEST as an exception to > > pte_protnone(), though that might require adjusting pte_protnone() to be > > meaningful even when CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING=n. > > > > if ((flags & FOLL_NUMA) && pte_protnone(pte)) > > goto no_page; > > if ((flags & FOLL_WRITE) && !can_follow_write_pte(pte, flags)) { > > pte_unmap_unlock(ptep, ptl); > > return NULL; > > } > > Good catch. I'll look into how to untangle NUMA balancing and PageGuest(). > It shouldn't be hard. PageGuest() pages should be subject for balancing. > > > > Do you see any problems with this? > > > > > > > Oh, and the other nicety is that I think it would avoid having to explicitly > > > > handle PageGuest() memory that is being accessed from kernel/KVM, i.e. if all > > > > memory exposed to KVM must be !PageGuest(), then it is also eligible for > > > > copy_{to,from}_user(). > > > > > > copy_{to,from}_user() enforce by setting PTE entries to PROT_NONE. > > > > But KVM does _not_ want those PTEs PROT_NONE. If KVM is accessing memory that > > is also accessible by the the guest, then it must be shared. And if it's shared, > > it must also be accessible to host userspace, i.e. something other than PROT_NONE, > > otherwise the memory isn't actually shared with anything. > > > > As above, any guest-accessible memory that is accessed by the host must be > > shared, and so must be mapped with the required permissions. > > I don't see contradiction here: copy_{to,from}_user() would fail with > -EFAULT on PROT_NONE PTE. > > By saying in initial posting that inserting PageGuest() into shared is > fine, I didn't mean it's usefule, just allowed. Yeah, and I'm saying we should explicitly disallow mapping PageGuest() into shared memory, and then the KVM code that manually kmaps() PageGuest() memory to avoid copy_{to,from}_user() failure goes aways.