On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 05:12:02PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:

On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 9:01 AM Andrei Vagin [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 08:46:40AM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 7:59 AM Andrei Vagin [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

We already have process_vm_readv and process_vm_writev to read and write
to a process memory faster than we can do this with ptrace. And now it
is time for process_vm_exec that allows executing code in an address
space of another process. We can do this with ptrace but it is much
slower.

= Use-cases =

It seems to me like your proposed API doesn't really fit either one of
those usecases well...

quoted

Here are two known use-cases. The first one is “application kernel”
sandboxes like User-mode Linux and gVisor. In this case, we have a
process that runs the sandbox kernel and a set of stub processes that
are used to manage guest address spaces. Guest code is executed in the
context of stub processes but all system calls are intercepted and
handled in the sandbox kernel. Right now, these sort of sandboxes use
PTRACE_SYSEMU to trap system calls, but the process_vm_exec can
significantly speed them up.

In this case, since you really only want an mm_struct to run code
under, it seems weird to create a whole task with its own PID and so
on. It seems to me like something similar to the /dev/kvm API would be
more appropriate here? Implementation options that I see for that
would be:

1. mm_struct-based:
      a set of syscalls to create a new mm_struct,
      change memory mappings under that mm_struct, and switch to it

I like the idea to have a handle for mm. Instead of pid, we will pass
this handle to process_vm_exec. We have pidfd for processes and we can
introduce mmfd for mm_struct.

I personally think that it might be quite unwieldy when it comes to
the restrictions you get from trying to have shared memory with the
owning process - I'm having trouble figuring out how you can implement
copy-on-write semantics without relying on copy-on-write logic in the
host OS and without being able to use userfaultfd.

It is easy. COW mappings are mapped to guest address spaces without the
write permission. If one of processes wants to write something, it
triggers a fault that is handled in the Sentry (supervisor/kernel).

But if that's not a problem somehow, and you can find some reasonable
way to handle memory usage accounting and fix up everything that
assumes that multithreaded userspace threads don't switch ->mm, I
guess this might work for your usecase.

quoted

quoted

2. pagetable-mirroring-based:
      like /dev/kvm, an API to create a new pagetable, mirror parts of
      the mm_struct's pagetables over into it with modified permissions
      (like KVM_SET_USER_MEMORY_REGION),
      and run code under that context.
      page fault handling would first handle the fault against mm->pgd
      as normal, then mirror the PTE over into the secondary pagetables.
      invalidation could be handled with MMU notifiers.

I found this idea interesting and decided to look at it more closely.
After reading the kernel code for a few days, I realized that it would
not be easy to implement something like this,

Yeah, it might need architecture-specific code to flip the page tables
on userspace entry/exit, and maybe also for mirroring them. And for
the TLB flushing logic...

quoted

but more important is that
I don’t understand what problem it solves. Will it simplify the
user-space code? I don’t think so. Will it improve performance? It is
unclear for me too.

Some reasons I can think of are:

 - direct guest memory access: I imagined you'd probably want to be able to
   directly access userspace memory from the supervisor, and
   with this approach that'd become easy.

Right now, we use shared memory regions for that and they work fine. As
I already mentioned the most part of memory are never mapped to the
supervisor address space.

 - integration with on-demand paging of the host OS: You'd be able to
   create things like file-backed copy-on-write mappings from the
   host filesystem, or implement your own mappings backed by some kind
   of storage using userfaultfd.

This isn't a problem either...

 - sandboxing: For sandboxing usecases (not your usecase), it would be
   possible to e.g. create a read-only clone of the entire address space of a
   process and give write access to specific parts of it, or something
   like that.
   These address space clones could potentially be created and destroyed
   fairly quickly.

This is a very valid example and I would assume this is where your idea
was coming from. I have some doubts about the idea of additional
sub-page-tables in the kernel, but I know a good way how to implement
your idea with KVM. You can look at how the KVM platform is implemented in
gVisor and this sort of sandboxing can be implemented in the same way.

In a few words, we create a KVM virtual machine, repeat the process
address space in the guest ring0, implement basic operating system-level
stubs, so that the process can jump between the host ring3 and the guest
ring0.

https://github.com/google/gvisor/blob/master/pkg/ring0/
https://github.com/google/gvisor/tree/master/pkg/sentry/platform/kvm

When we have all these bits, we can create any page tables for a guest
ring3 and run untrusted code there. The sandbox process switches to
the guest ring0 and then it switches to a guest ring3 with a specified
page tables and a state.

https://cs.opensource.google/gvisor/gvisor/+/master:pkg/sentry/platform/kvm/machine_amd64.go;l=356

With this scheme, the sandbox process will have direct access to page
tables and will be able to change them.

 - accounting: memory usage would be automatically accounted to the
   supervisor process, so even without a parasite process, you'd be able
   to see the memory usage correctly in things like "top".

 - small (non-pageable) memory footprint in the host kernel:
   The only things the host kernel would have to persistently store would be
   the normal MM data structures for the supervisor plus the mappings
   from "guest userspace" memory ranges to supervisor memory ranges;
   userspace pagetables would be discardable, and could even be shared
   with those of the supervisor in cases where the alignment fits.
   So with this, large anonymous mappings with 4K granularity only cost you
   ~0.20% overhead across host and guest address space; without this, if you
   used shared mappings instead, you'd pay twice that for every 2MiB range
   from which parts are accessed in both contexts, plus probably another
   ~0.2% or so for the "struct address_space"?

If we use shared mappings, we don't map the most part of guest memory to
the supervisor address space and don't have page tables for it there. I
would say that this is a question where a memory footprint will be
smaller...

 - all memory-management-related syscalls could be directly performed
   in the "kernel" process

But yeah, some of those aren't really relevant for your usecase, and I
guess things like the accounting aspect could just as well be solved
differently...

quoted

First, in the KVM case, we have a few big linear mappings and need to
support one “shadow” address space. In the case of sandboxes, we can
have a tremendous amount of mappings and many address spaces that we
need to manage.  Memory mappings will be mapped with different addresses
in a supervisor address space and “guest” address spaces. If guest
address spaces will not have their mm_structs, we will need to reinvent
vma-s in some form. If guest address spaces have mm_structs, this will
look similar to https://lwn.net/Articles/830648/.

Second, each pagetable is tied up with mm_stuct. You suggest creating
new pagetables that will not have their mm_struct-s (sorry if I
misunderstood something).

Yeah, that's what I had in mind, page tables without an mm_struct.

quoted

I am not sure that it will be easy to
implement. How many corner cases will be there?

Yeah, it would require some work around TLB flushing and entry/exit
from userspace. But from a high-level perspective it feels to me like
a change with less systematic impact. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

quoted

As for page faults in a secondary address space, we will need to find a
fault address in the main address space, handle the fault there and then
mirror the PTE to the secondary pagetable.

Right.

quoted

Effectively, it means that
page faults will be handled in two address spaces. Right now, we use
memfd and shared mappings. It means that each fault is handled only in
one address space, and we map a guest memory region to the supervisor
address space only when we need to access it. A large portion of guest
anonymous memory is never mapped to the supervisor address space.
Will an overhead of mirrored address spaces be smaller than memfd shared
mappings? I am not sure.

But as long as the mappings are sufficiently big and aligned properly,
or you explicitly manage the supervisor address space, some of that
cost disappears: E.g. even if a page is mapped in both address spaces,
you wouldn't have a memory cost for the second mapping if the page
tables are shared.

You are right. It is interesting how many pte-s will be shared. For
example, if a guest process forks a child, all anon memory will be COW,
this means we will need to remove the W bit from pte-s and so we will
need to allocate pte-s for both processes...

quoted

Third, this approach will not get rid of having process_vm_exec. We will
need to switch to a guest address space with a specified state and
switch back on faults or syscalls.

Yeah, you'd still need a syscall for running code under a different
set of page tables. But that's something that KVM _almost_ already
does.

I don't understand this analogy with KVM...

quoted

If the main concern is the ability to
run syscalls on a remote mm, we can think about how to fix this. I see
two ways what we can do here:

* Specify the exact list of system calls that are allowed. The first
three candidates are mmap, munmap, and vmsplice.

* Instead of allowing us to run system calls, we can implement this in
the form of commands. In the case of sandboxes, we need to implement
only two commands to create and destroy memory mappings in a target
address space.

FWIW, there is precedent for something similar: The Android folks
already added process_madvise() for remotely messing with the VMAs of
another process to some degree.

I know. We tried to implement process_vm_mmap and process_vm_splice:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/1/9/32
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-mm/cover/155836064844.2441.10911127801797083064.stgit@localhost.localdomain/

Thanks,
Andrei