Re: [PATCH] KVM: s390: Fix lockdep issue in vm memop

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

 





Am 23.03.22 um 09:57 schrieb Janosch Frank:
On 3/23/22 09:52, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
On 3/23/22 08:58, Janosch Frank wrote:
On 3/22/22 16:32, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
Issuing a memop on a protected vm does not make sense,

Issuing a vm memop on a protected vm...

The cpu memop still makes sense, no?

The vcpu memop does hold the vcpu->lock, so no lockdep issue.
If you issue a vcpu memop while enabling protected virtualization,
the memop might find that the vcpu is not protected, while other vcpus
might already be, but I don't think there's a way to create secure memory
concurrent with the memop.

I just wanted you to make this a bit more specific since we now have vm and vcpu memops. vm memops don't make sense for pv guests but vcpu ones are needed to access the sida.

Right, I think changing the commit messages
- Issuing a memop on a protected vm does not make sense
+ Issuing a vm memop on a protected vm does not make sense

does make sense.



neither is the memory readable/writable, nor does it make sense to check
storage keys. This is why the ioctl will return -EINVAL when it detects
the vm to be protected. However, in order to ensure that the vm cannot
become protected during the memop, the kvm->lock would need to be taken
for the duration of the ioctl. This is also required because
kvm_s390_pv_is_protected asserts that the lock must be held.
Instead, don't try to prevent this. If user space enables secure
execution concurrently with a memop it must accecpt the possibility of
the memop failing.
Still check if the vm is currently protected, but without locking and
consider it a heuristic.

Fixes: ef11c9463ae0 ("KVM: s390: Add vm IOCTL for key checked guest absolute memory access")
Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Makes sense to me.

Reviewed-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

---
   arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 11 ++++++++++-
   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
index ca96f84db2cc..53adbe86a68f 100644
--- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
+++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
@@ -2385,7 +2385,16 @@ static int kvm_s390_vm_mem_op(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_s390_mem_op *mop)
           return -EINVAL;
       if (mop->size > MEM_OP_MAX_SIZE)
           return -E2BIG;
-    if (kvm_s390_pv_is_protected(kvm))
+    /*
+     * This is technically a heuristic only, if the kvm->lock is not
+     * taken, it is not guaranteed that the vm is/remains non-protected.
+     * This is ok from a kernel perspective, wrongdoing is detected
+     * on the access, -EFAULT is returned and the vm may crash the
+     * next time it accesses the memory in question.
+     * There is no sane usecase to do switching and a memop on two
+     * different CPUs at the same time.
+     */
+    if (kvm_s390_pv_get_handle(kvm))
           return -EINVAL;
       if (mop->flags & KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_SKEY_PROTECTION) {
           if (access_key_invalid(mop->key))

base-commit: c9b8fecddb5bb4b67e351bbaeaa648a6f7456912






[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