Re: [PATCH v11 2/6] arm64: kvm: Introduce MTE VM feature
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Date: 2021-05-07 18:25:47
Also in:
kvmarm, lkml, qemu-devel
Subsystem:
memory management, memory mapping, the rest · Maintainers:
Andrew Morton, Liam R. Howlett, Lorenzo Stoakes, Linus Torvalds
On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 05:15:25PM +0100, Steven Price wrote:
On 04/05/2021 18:40, Catalin Marinas wrote:quoted
On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 05:06:41PM +0100, Steven Price wrote:quoted
On 28/04/2021 18:07, Catalin Marinas wrote:quoted
While the set_pte_at() race on the page flags is somewhat clearer, we may still have a race here with the VMM's set_pte_at() if the page is mapped as tagged. KVM has its own mmu_lock but it wouldn't be held when handling the VMM page tables (well, not always, see below). gfn_to_pfn_prot() ends up calling get_user_pages*(). At least the slow path (hva_to_pfn_slow()) ends up with FOLL_TOUCH in gup and the VMM pte would be set, tags cleared (if PROT_MTE) before the stage 2 pte. I'm not sure whether get_user_page_fast_only() does the same. The race with an mprotect(PROT_MTE) in the VMM is fine I think as the KVM mmu notifier is invoked before set_pte_at() and racing with another user_mem_abort() is serialised by the KVM mmu_lock. The subsequent set_pte_at() would see the PG_mte_tagged set either by the current CPU or by the one it was racing with.Given the changes to set_pte_at() which means that tags are restored from swap even if !PROT_MTE, the only race I can see remaining is the creation of new PROT_MTE mappings. As you mention an attempt to change mappings in the VMM memory space should involve a mmu notifier call which I think serialises this. So the remaining issue is doing this in a separate address space. So I guess the potential problem is: * allocate memory MAP_SHARED but !PROT_MTE * fork() * VM causes a fault in parent address space * child does a mprotect(PROT_MTE) With the last two potentially racing. Sadly I can't see a good way of handling that.Ah, the mmap lock doesn't help as they are different processes (mprotect() acquires it as a writer). I wonder whether this is racy even in the absence of KVM. If both parent and child do an mprotect(PROT_MTE), one of them may be reading stale tags for a brief period. Maybe we should revisit whether shared MTE pages are of any use, though it's an ABI change (not bad if no-one is relying on this). However...Shared MTE pages are certainly hard to use correctly (e.g. see the discussions with the VMM accessing guest memory). But I guess that boat has sailed.
Digging out some old emails (two years ago), the Chrome people may have found a use for MTE in shared mappings (with memfd_create), though not sure they took advantage of this yet.
quoted
Thinking about this, we have a similar problem with the PG_dcache_clean and two processes doing mprotect(PROT_EXEC). One of them could see the flag set and skip the I-cache maintenance while the other executes stale instructions. change_pte_range() could acquire the page lock if the page is VM_SHARED (my preferred core mm fix). It doesn't immediately solve the MTE/KVM case but we could at least take the page lock via user_mem_abort().For PG_dcache_clean AFAICS the solution is actually simple: split the test and set parts. i.e..: if (!test_bit(PG_dcache_clean, &page->flags)) { sync_icache_aliases(page_address(page), page_size(page)); set_bit(PG_dcache_clean, &page->flags); } There isn't a problem with repeating the sync_icache_aliases() call in the case of a race. Or am I missing something?
No, the fix is simple as you said.
quoted
Or maybe we just document this behaviour as racy both for PROT_EXEC and PROT_MTE mappings and be done with this. The minor issue with PROT_MTE is the potential leaking of tags (it's harder to leak information through the I-cache).This is the real issue I see - the race in PROT_MTE case is either a data leak (syncing after setting the bit) or data loss (syncing before setting the bit).
For a moment I thought an mmap(PROT_MTE, MAP_SHARED) on memfd/tmpfs file may lead to the same situation but the mmap() itself won't directly cause allocating the page. The subsequent fault via filemap_map_pages() seems to take the page lock.
But without serialising through a spinlock (in mte_sync_tags()) I haven't been able to come up with any way of closing the race. But with the change to set_pte_at() to call mte_sync_tags() even if the PTE isn't PROT_MTE that is likely to seriously hurt performance.
Yeah. We could add another page flag as a lock though I think it should be the core code that prevents the race. If we are to do it in the arch code, maybe easier with a custom ptep_modify_prot_start/end() where we check if it's VM_SHARED and VM_MTE, take a (big) lock. In the core code, something like below (well, a partial hack, not tested and it doesn't handle huge pages but just to give an idea):
diff --git a/mm/mprotect.c b/mm/mprotect.c
index 94188df1ee55..6ba96ff141a6 100644
--- a/mm/mprotect.c
+++ b/mm/mprotect.c@@ -76,14 +76,13 @@ static unsigned long change_pte_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd, if (pte_present(oldpte)) { pte_t ptent; bool preserve_write = prot_numa && pte_write(oldpte); + struct page *page = NULL; /* * Avoid trapping faults against the zero or KSM * pages. See similar comment in change_huge_pmd. */ if (prot_numa) { - struct page *page; - /* Avoid TLB flush if possible */ if (pte_protnone(oldpte)) continue;
@@ -114,6 +113,10 @@ static unsigned long change_pte_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd, } oldpte = ptep_modify_prot_start(vma, addr, pte); + if (vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED) { + page = vm_normal_page(vma, addr, oldpte); + lock_page(page); + } ptent = pte_modify(oldpte, newprot); if (preserve_write) ptent = pte_mk_savedwrite(ptent);
@@ -138,6 +141,8 @@ static unsigned long change_pte_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd, ptent = pte_mkwrite(ptent); } ptep_modify_prot_commit(vma, addr, pte, oldpte, ptent); + if (page) + unlock_page(page); pages++; } else if (is_swap_pte(oldpte)) { swp_entry_t entry = pte_to_swp_entry(oldpte);
--
Catalin
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel