Thread (12 messages) 12 messages, 3 authors, 2021-06-17

Re: [PATCH v15 0/7] MTE support for KVM guest

From: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>
Date: 2021-06-17 13:24:33
Also in: kvmarm, lkml, qemu-devel

On 17/06/2021 14:15, Marc Zyngier wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 13:13:22 +0100,
Catalin Marinas [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 10:05:18AM +0100, Steven Price wrote:
quoted
I realise there are still open questions[1] around the performance of
this series (the 'big lock', tag_sync_lock, introduced in the first
patch). But there should be no impact on non-MTE workloads and until we
get real MTE-enabled hardware it's hard to know whether there is a need
for something more sophisticated or not. Peter Collingbourne's patch[3]
to clear the tags at page allocation time should hide more of the impact
for non-VM cases. So the remaining concern is around VM startup which
could be effectively serialised through the lock.
[...]
quoted
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/r/874ke7z3ng.wl-maz%40kernel.org
Start-up, VM resume, migration could be affected by this lock, basically
any time you fault a page into the guest. As you said, for now it should
be fine as long as the hardware doesn't support MTE or qemu doesn't
enable MTE in guests. But the problem won't go away.
Indeed. And I find it odd to say "it's not a problem, we don't have
any HW available". By this token, why should we merge this work the
first place, or any of the MTE work that has gone into the kernel over
the past years?
quoted
We have a partial solution with an array of locks to mitigate against
this but there's still the question of whether we should actually bother
for something that's unlikely to happen in practice: MAP_SHARED memory
in guests (ignoring the stage 1 case for now).

If MAP_SHARED in guests is not a realistic use-case, we have the vma in
user_mem_abort() and if the VM_SHARED flag is set together with MTE
enabled for guests, we can reject the mapping.
That's a reasonable approach. I wonder whether we could do that right
at the point where the memslot is associated with the VM, like this:
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
index a36a2e3082d8..ebd3b3224386 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
@@ -1376,6 +1376,9 @@ int kvm_arch_prepare_memory_region(struct kvm *kvm,
 		if (!vma)
 			break;
 
+		if (kvm_has_mte(kvm) && vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED)
+			return -EINVAL;
+
 		/*
 		 * Take the intersection of this VMA with the memory region
 		 */
which takes the problem out of the fault path altogether? We document
the restriction and move on. With that, we can use a non-locking
version of mte_sync_page_tags().
Does this deal with the case where the VMAs are changed after the
memslot is created? While we can do the check here to give the VMM a
heads-up if it gets it wrong, I think we also need it in
user_mem_abort() to deal with a VMM which mmap()s over the VA of the
memslot. Or am I missing something?

But if everyone is happy with the restriction (just for KVM) of not
allowing MTE+VM_SHARED then that sounds like a good way forward.

Thanks,

Steve
quoted
We can discuss the stage 1 case separately from this series.
Works for me.

Thanks,

	M.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help