On Fri, Sep 23, 2022, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 05:38:12PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I looked through some of the code related to IOMMUv2 (the thing where
> > the IOMMU walks the normal userspace page tables and TLB shootdowns
> > are replicated to the IOMMU through
> > mmu_notifier_ops::invalidate_range).
> >
> > I think there's a bug in the interaction between tlb_finish_mmu() and
> > mmu_notifier_ops::invalidate_range: In the mm_tlb_flush_nested() case,
> > __tlb_reset_range() sets tlb->start and tlb->end *both* to ~0.
> > Afterwards, tlb_finish_mmu() calls
> > tlb_flush_mmu()->tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly()->mmu_notifier_invalidate_range(),
> > which will pass those tlb->start and tlb->end values to
> > mmu_notifier_ops::invalidate_range callbacks. But those callbacks
> > don't know about this special case and then basically only flush
> > virtual address ~0, making the flush useless.
>
> Yeah, that looks wrong to me, and it extends more than just the iommu
> drivers kvm_arch_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range() also does not handle
> this coding.
FWIW, the bug is likely benign for KVM. KVM does almost all of its TLB flushing
via invalidate_range_{start,end}(), the invalidate_range() hook is used only by
x86/VMX to react to a specific KVM-allocated page being migrated (the page is only
ever unmapped when the VM is dying).
> Most likely tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly() need to change it back to 0 to ~0?
> I wonder why it uses such an odd coding in the first place?
>
> Actually, maybe having mm_tlb_flush_nested() call __tlb_reset_range()
> to generate a 'flush all' request is just a bad idea, as we already
> had another bug in 7a30df49f63ad92 related to reset_range doing the
> wrong thing for a flush all action.
>
> > (However, pretty much every place that calls tlb_finish_mmu() first
> > calls mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end() even though the
> > appropriate thing would probably be
> > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_only_end(); and I think those two
> > things probably cancel each other out?)
>
> That does sound like double flushing to me, though as you note below,
> the invalidate_range() triggered by range_end() after the TLB
> flush/page freeing is functionally incorrect, so we cannot rely on it.
>
> > Also, from what I can tell, the mremap() code, in move_page_tables(),
> > only invokes mmu_notifier_ops::invalidate_range via the
> > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end() at the very end, long after TLB
> > flushes must have happened - sort of like the bug we had years ago
> > where mremap() was flushing the normal TLBs too late
> > (https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/detail?id=1695).
>
> Based on the description of eb66ae03082960 I would say that yes the
> invalidate_range op is missing here for the same reasons the CPU flush
> was missing.
>
> AFAIK if we are flushing the CPU tlb then we really must also flush
> the CPU tlb that KVM controls, and that is primarily what
> invalidate_range() is used for.
As above, for its actual secondary MMU, KVM invalidates and flushes at
invalidate_range_start(), and then prevents vCPUs from creating new entries for
the range until invalidate_range_start_end().
The VMX use case is for a physical address that is consumed by hardware without
going through the secondary page tables; using the start/end hooks would be slightly
annoying due to the need to stall the vCPU until end, and so KVM uses invalidate_range()
for that one specific case.
> Which makes me wonder if the invalidate_range() hidden inside
> invalidate_end() is a bad idea in general - when is this need and
> would be correct? Isn't it better to put the invalidates near the TLB
> invalidates and leave start/end as purely a bracketing API, which by
> definition, cannot have an end that is 'too late'?
Documentation/mm/mmu_notifier.rst explains this, although even that is quite subtle.
The argument is that if the change is purely to downgrade protections, then
deferring invalidate_range() is ok because the only requirement is that secondary
MMUs invalidate before the "end" of the sequence.
When changing a pte to write protect or to point to a new write protected page
with same content (KSM) it is fine to delay the mmu_notifier_invalidate_range
call to mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end() outside the page table lock. This
is true even if the thread doing the page table update is preempted right after
releasing page table lock but before call mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end().
That said, I also dislike hiding invalidate_range() inside end(), I constantly
forget about that behavior. To address that, what about renaming
mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end() to make it more explicit, e.g.
mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_and_end().
