Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] KVM: x86/mmu: Fix write-protection of PTs mapped by the TDP MMU

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Jan 13, 2022, David Matlack wrote:
> When the TDP MMU is write-protection GFNs for page table protection (as
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                      write-protecting

> opposed to for dirty logging, or due to the HVA not being writable), it
> checks if the SPTE is already write-protected and if so skips modifying
> the SPTE and the TLB flush.
> 
> This behavior is incorrect because the SPTE may be write-protected for
> dirty logging. This implies that the SPTE could be locklessly be made

Spurious "be" between could and locklessly.

Hmm, it doesn't imply anything, the behavior of MMU-writable is quite explicit.
If the bug occurs, then _that_ implies the SPTE was write-protected for dirty
logging, otherwise MMU-Writable would have been '0' due to HOST-Writable also
being '0'.

I think what you're trying to say is:

  This behavior is incorrect because it fails to check if the SPTE is
  write-protected for page table protection, i.e. fails to check that
  MMU-writable is '0'.  If the SPTE was write-protected for dirty logging
  but not page table protection, the SPTE could locklessly be made
  writable, and vCPUs could still be running with writable mappings
  cached in their TLB.

> writable on the next write access, and that vCPUs could still be running
> with writable SPTEs cached in their TLB.

Nit, it's technically the mapping, not the SPTE itself, that's cached in the TLB.

> Fix this by only skipping setting the SPTE if the SPTE is already
> write-protected *and* MMU-writable is already clear.

Might also be worth adding:

  Note, technically checking only MMU-writable would suffice, as a SPTE
  cannot be writable without MMU-writable being set, but check both to
  be paranoid and because it arguably yields more readable code.

Pedantry aside,

Reviewed-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>

> Fixes: 46044f72c382 ("kvm: x86/mmu: Support write protection for nesting in tdp MMU")
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Signed-off-by: David Matlack <dmatlack@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
> index 7b1bc816b7c3..bc9e3553fba2 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
> @@ -1442,12 +1442,12 @@ static bool write_protect_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_mmu_page *root,
>  		    !is_last_spte(iter.old_spte, iter.level))
>  			continue;
>  
> -		if (!is_writable_pte(iter.old_spte))
> -			break;
> -
>  		new_spte = iter.old_spte &
>  			~(PT_WRITABLE_MASK | shadow_mmu_writable_mask);
>  
> +		if (new_spte == iter.old_spte)
> +			break;
> +
>  		tdp_mmu_set_spte(kvm, &iter, new_spte);
>  		spte_set = true;
>  	}
> 
> base-commit: fea31d1690945e6dd6c3e89ec5591490857bc3d4
> -- 
> 2.34.1.703.g22d0c6ccf7-goog
> 



[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux