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?
Even if the VCPU thread is the only thread using the struct mm, I still
don't understand how this happens, because we can't be both handling
signals and be processing exits from the VM at the same time, can we?
Thanks,
-Christoffer