On 25.03.24 00:45, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Switch from follow_pfn to follow_pte so that we can get rid of
follow_pfn. Note that this doesn't fix any of the pre-existing
raciness and lack of permission checking in the code.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
---
drivers/virt/acrn/mm.c | 10 ++++++++--
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/virt/acrn/mm.c b/drivers/virt/acrn/mm.c
index fa5d9ca6be5706..69c3f619f88196 100644
--- a/drivers/virt/acrn/mm.c
+++ b/drivers/virt/acrn/mm.c
@@ -171,18 +171,24 @@ int acrn_vm_ram_map(struct acrn_vm *vm, struct acrn_vm_memmap *memmap)
mmap_read_lock(current->mm);
vma = vma_lookup(current->mm, memmap->vma_base);
if (vma && ((vma->vm_flags & VM_PFNMAP) != 0)) {
+ spinlock_t *ptl;
+ pte_t *ptep;
+
if ((memmap->vma_base + memmap->len) > vma->vm_end) {
mmap_read_unlock(current->mm);
return -EINVAL;
}
- ret = follow_pfn(vma, memmap->vma_base, &pfn);
- mmap_read_unlock(current->mm);
+ ret = follow_pte(vma->vm_mm, memmap->vma_base, &ptep, &ptl);
if (ret < 0) {
+ mmap_read_unlock(current->mm);
dev_dbg(acrn_dev.this_device,
"Failed to lookup PFN at VMA:%pK.\n", (void *)memmap->vma_base);
return ret;
}
+ pfn = pte_pfn(ptep_get(ptep));
+ pte_unmap_unlock(ptep, ptl);
+ mmap_read_unlock(current->mm);
return acrn_mm_region_add(vm, memmap->user_vm_pa,
PFN_PHYS(pfn), memmap->len,
... I have similar patches lying around here (see bwlow). I added some
actual access permission checks.
(I also realized, that if we get an anon folio in a COW mapping via follow_pte()
here, I suspect one might be able to do some nasty things. Just imagine if we
munmap(), free the anon folio, and then it gets used in other context ... At
least KVM/vfio handle that using references+MMU notifiers.)
Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
commit 812e577dea97327bcc68d34504e7387dff2ffd8f
Author: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri Mar 8 13:53:04 2024 +0100
virt/acrn/mm: use follow_pte() instead of follow_pfn()
follow_pfn() should not be used. Instead, use follow_pte() and do some
best-guess PTE permission checks.
Should we simply always require pte_write()? Maybe. Performing no
checks clearly looks wrong, and pin_user_pages_fast() is unconditionally
called with FOLL_WRITE.
Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
diff --git a/drivers/virt/acrn/mm.c b/drivers/virt/acrn/mm.c
index fa5d9ca6be57..563c545adb2c 100644
--- a/drivers/virt/acrn/mm.c
+++ b/drivers/virt/acrn/mm.c
@@ -171,12 +171,22 @@ int acrn_vm_ram_map(struct acrn_vm *vm, struct acrn_vm_memmap *memmap)
mmap_read_lock(current->mm);
vma = vma_lookup(current->mm, memmap->vma_base);
if (vma && ((vma->vm_flags & VM_PFNMAP) != 0)) {
+ spinlock_t *ptl;
+ pte_t *ptep;
+
if ((memmap->vma_base + memmap->len) > vma->vm_end) {
mmap_read_unlock(current->mm);
return -EINVAL;
}
- ret = follow_pfn(vma, memmap->vma_base, &pfn);
+ ret = follow_pte(vma, memmap->vma_base, &ptep, &ptl);
+ if (!ret) {
+ pfn = pte_pfn(ptep_get(ptep));
+ if (!pte_write(ptep_get(ptep)) &&
+ (memmap->attr & ACRN_MEM_ACCESS_WRITE))
+ ret = -EFAULT;
+ pte_unmap_unlock(ptep, ptl);
+ }
mmap_read_unlock(current->mm);
if (ret < 0) {
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
