On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 05:40:48PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 06/07/17 10:42, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 10:34:58AM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> >>On 06/07/17 08:45, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> >>>On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 09:07:49AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>On 05.07.17 10:57, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> >>>>>Hi Alex,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 08:20:31AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>>>>>The kvm_age_hva callback may be called all the way concurrently while
> >>>>>>kvm_mmu_notifier_release() is running.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>The release function sets kvm->arch.pgd = NULL which the aging function
> >>>>>>however implicitly relies on in stage2_get_pud(). That means they can
> >>>>>>race and the aging function may dereference a NULL pgd pointer.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>This patch adds a check for that case, so that we leave the aging
> >>>>>>function silently.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>>Fixes: 293f29363 ("kvm-arm: Unmap shadow pagetables properly")
> >>>>>>Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <agraf@xxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>---
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>v1 -> v2:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - Fix commit message
> >>>>>> - Add Fixes and stable tags
> >>>>>>---
> >>>>>>virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c | 4 ++++
> >>>>>>1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
> >>>>>>index f2d5b6c..227931f 100644
> >>>>>>--- a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
> >>>>>>+++ b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
> >>>>>>@@ -861,6 +861,10 @@ static pud_t *stage2_get_pud(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_mmu_memory_cache *cache
> >>>>>> pgd_t *pgd;
> >>>>>> pud_t *pud;
> >>>>>>+ /* Do we clash with kvm_free_stage2_pgd()? */
> >>>>>>+ if (!kvm->arch.pgd)
> >>>>>>+ return NULL;
> >>>>>>+
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I think this check should be moved up in the chain. We call kvm_age_hva(), with
> >>>>>the kvm->mmu_lock held and we don't release it till we reach here. So, ideally,
> >>>>>if we find the PGD is null when we reach kvm_age_hva(), we could simply return
> >>>>>there, like we do for other call backs from the KVM mmu_notifier.
> >>>>
> >>>>That probably works too - I'm not sure which version is more
> >>>>consistent as well as more maintainable in the long run. I'll leave
> >>>>the call here to Christoffer.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Let's look at the callers to stage2_get_pmd, which is the only caller of
> >>>stage2_get_pud, where the problem was observed:
> >>>
> >>> user_mem_abort
> >>> -> stage2_set_pmd_huge
> >>> -> stage2_get_pmd
> >>>
> >>> user_mem_abort
> >>> -> stage2_set_pte
> >>> -> stage2_get_pmd
> >>>
> >>> handle_access_fault
> >>> -> stage2_get_pmd
> >>>
> >>>For the above three functions, pgd cannot ever be NULL, because this is
> >>>running in the context of a VCPU thread, which means the reference on
> >>>the VM fd must not reach zero, so no need to call that here.
> >>
> >>I think there is some problem here. See below for more information.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> kvm_set_spte_handler
> >>> -> stage2_set_pte
> >>> -> stage2_get_pmd
> >>>
> >>>This is called from kvm_set_spte_hva, which is one of the MMU notifiers,
> >>>so it can race similarly kvm_age_hva and kvm_test_age_hva, but it
> >>>already checks for !kvm->arch.pgd.
> >>>
> >>> kvm_phys_addr_ioremap
> >>> -> stage2_set_pte
> >>> -> stage2_get_pmd
> >>>
> >>>This is called from two places: (1) The VGIC code (as part of
> >>>vgic_v2_map_resources) and can only be called in the context of running
> >>>a VCPU, so the pgd cannot be null by virtue of the same argument as for
> >>>user_mem_abort. (2) kvm_arch_prepare_memory_region calls
> >>>kvm_phys_addr_ioremap, which is a VM ioctl so similarly, I cannot see
> >>>how the VM can be in the middle of being freed while handling ioctls on
> >>>the fd. Therefore, following the same argument, this should be safe as
> >>>well.
> >>>
> >>> kvm_age_hva_handler and kvm_test_age_hva_handler
> >>> -> stage2_get_pmd
> >>>
> >>>Handled by the patch proposed by Suzuki.
> >>>
> >>>What does all that tell us? First, it should give us some comfort that we
> >>>don't have more races of this kind. Second, it teels us that there are
> >>>a number of different and not-obvious call paths to stage2_pet_pud,
> >>>which could be an argument to simply check the pgd whenever it's called,
> >>>despite the minor runtime overhead. On the other hand, the check itself
> >>>is only valid knowing that we synchronize against kvm_free_stage2_pgd
> >>>using the kvm->mmu_lock() and understanding that this only happens when
> >>>mmu notifiers call into the KVM MMU code outside the context of the VM.
> >>>
> >>>The last consideration is the winning argument for me to put the check
> >>>in kvm_age_hva_handler and kvm_test_age_hva_handler, but I think it's
> >>>important that we document why it's only these three high-level callers
> >>>(incl. kvm_set_spte_handler) that need the check, either in the code or
> >>>in the commit message.
> >>
> >>The only way we end up freeing the stage-2 PGD is via the mmu_notifier_release(),
> >>which could be triggered via two different paths.
> >>
> >>1) kvm_destroy_vm(), where all the VM resources has been released and the
> >>refcount on the KVM instances are dropped, via kvm_put_kvm().
> >>
> >>kvm_put_kvm()
> >> kvm_destroy_vm()
> >> mmu_notifier_unregsiter
> >> mmu_notifier_ops->release()
> >> kvm_arch_flush_shadow_all
> >> kvm_free_stage2_pgd -> free the page table with the mmu_lock held
> >> occasionally releasing it to avoid contention.
> >>or
> >>
> >>2) do_signal -> get_signal -> do_group_exit - >
> >> do_exit
> >> exit_mm
> >> mmput => __mmput
> >> exit_mmap
> >> mmu_notifier_release
> >> mmu_notifier_ops->release
> >> kvm_arch_flush_shadow_all
> >> kvm_free_stage2_pgd
> >>
> >>In the first case, all references to the VM are dropped and hence none of the
> >>VCPU could still be executing.
> >>
> >>However, in the second case it may not be. So we have a potential problem with
> >>the VCPU trying to run even when the pages were unmapped. I think the root cause
> >>of all these issues boils down to the assumption that KVM holds a reference to
> >>MM (which is not necessarily the user space mapping. i.e mmgrab vs mmget).
> >>I am not sure if the VCPU should hold a reference to the mmaps to make sure
> >>it is safe to run. That way, the mmap stays until the VCPU eventually exits
> >>and we are safe all the way around.
> >
> >Hmmm, my assumption is that if a VCPU is running, it means there is a
> >VCPU thread that shares the struct mm which is running, so I don't
> >understand how mmput would be able to call exit_mmap in the scenario
> >above?
> >
> >So the distinction here is that I don't assume that the VCPU fd holds a
> >reference to the mm, but I assume that the (running) VCPU thread does.
> >Is this incorrect?
>
> Sorry, I lost this thread in between.
No worries.
>
> Hmm. You're right. The VCPU should have a refcount on mmap and it shouldn't
> do anything with the mmu if it has dropped it. I was confused based on an
> old bug report,[ See the description of commit 293f293637b55d "kvm-arm: Unmap shadow pagetables
> properly"], which was fixed.
>
OK, that makes sense to me. I hope Andrea also agrees with this, so as
long as VCPU thread is running, exit_mm() will not be called.
Thanks,
-Christoffer
