Re: [PATCH v12 7/8] KVM: arm64: ioctl to fetch/store tags in a guest

[Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>]

On 20/05/2021 18:27, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 04:58:01PM +0100, Steven Price wrote:
>> On 20/05/2021 13:05, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 01:32:38PM +0100, Steven Price wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
>>>> index e89a5e275e25..4b6c83beb75d 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
>>>> @@ -1309,6 +1309,65 @@ static int kvm_vm_ioctl_set_device_addr(struct kvm *kvm,
>>>>  	}
>>>>  }
>>>>  
>>>> +static int kvm_vm_ioctl_mte_copy_tags(struct kvm *kvm,
>>>> +				      struct kvm_arm_copy_mte_tags *copy_tags)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	gpa_t guest_ipa = copy_tags->guest_ipa;
>>>> +	size_t length = copy_tags->length;
>>>> +	void __user *tags = copy_tags->addr;
>>>> +	gpa_t gfn;
>>>> +	bool write = !(copy_tags->flags & KVM_ARM_TAGS_FROM_GUEST);
>>>> +	int ret = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (copy_tags->reserved[0] || copy_tags->reserved[1])
>>>> +		return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (copy_tags->flags & ~KVM_ARM_TAGS_FROM_GUEST)
>>>> +		return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (length & ~PAGE_MASK || guest_ipa & ~PAGE_MASK)
>>>> +		return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> +	gfn = gpa_to_gfn(guest_ipa);
>>>> +
>>>> +	mutex_lock(&kvm->slots_lock);
>>>> +
>>>> +	while (length > 0) {
>>>> +		kvm_pfn_t pfn = gfn_to_pfn_prot(kvm, gfn, write, NULL);
>>>> +		void *maddr;
>>>> +		unsigned long num_tags = PAGE_SIZE / MTE_GRANULE_SIZE;
>>>> +
>>>> +		if (is_error_noslot_pfn(pfn)) {
>>>> +			ret = -EFAULT;
>>>> +			goto out;
>>>> +		}
>>>> +
>>>> +		maddr = page_address(pfn_to_page(pfn));
>>>> +
>>>> +		if (!write) {
>>>> +			num_tags = mte_copy_tags_to_user(tags, maddr, num_tags);
>>>> +			kvm_release_pfn_clean(pfn);
>>>
>>> Do we need to check if PG_mte_tagged is set? If the page was not faulted
>>> into the guest address space but the VMM has the page, does the
>>> gfn_to_pfn_prot() guarantee that a kvm_set_spte_gfn() was called? If
>>> not, this may read stale tags.
>>
>> Ah, I hadn't thought about that... No I don't believe gfn_to_pfn_prot()
>> will fault it into the guest.
> 
> It doesn't indeed. What it does is a get_user_pages() but it's not of
> much help since the VMM pte wouldn't be tagged (we would have solved
> lots of problems if we required PROT_MTE in the VMM...)

Sadly it solves some problems and creates others :(

>>>> +		} else {
>>>> +			num_tags = mte_copy_tags_from_user(maddr, tags,
>>>> +							   num_tags);
>>>> +			kvm_release_pfn_dirty(pfn);
>>>> +		}
>>>
>>> Same question here, if the we can't guarantee the stage 2 pte being set,
>>> we'd need to set PG_mte_tagged.
>>
>> This is arguably worse as we'll be writing tags into the guest but
>> without setting PG_mte_tagged - so they'll be lost when the guest then
>> faults the pages in. Which sounds like it should break migration.
>>
>> I think the below should be safe, and avoids the overhead of setting the
>> flag just for reads.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> ----8<----
>> 		page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
>> 		maddr = page_address(page);
>>
>> 		if (!write) {
>> 			if (test_bit(PG_mte_tagged, &page->flags))
>> 				num_tags = mte_copy_tags_to_user(tags, maddr,
>> 							MTE_GRANULES_PER_PAGE);
>> 			else
>> 				/* No tags in memory, so write zeros */
>> 				num_tags = MTE_GRANULES_PER_PAGE -
>> 					clear_user(tag, MTE_GRANULES_PER_PAGE);
>> 			kvm_release_pfn_clean(pfn);
> 
> For ptrace we return a -EOPNOTSUPP if the address doesn't have VM_MTE
> but I don't think it makes sense here, so I'm fine with clearing the
> destination and assuming that the tags are zero (as they'd be on
> faulting into the guest.

Yeah - conceptually all pages in an MTE-enabled guest have tags. It's
just we don't actually populate the physical memory until the guest
tries to touch them. So it makes sense to just return zeros here.
Alternatively we could populate the physical tags but that seems
unnecessary.

> Another thing I forgot to ask, what's guaranteeing that the page
> supports tags? Does this ioctl ensure that it would attempt the tag
> copying from some device mapping? Do we need some kvm_is_device_pfn()
> check? I guess ZONE_DEVICE memory we just refuse to map in an earlier
> patch.

Hmm, nothing much. While reads are now fine (the memory won't have
PG_mte_tagged), writes could potentially happen on ZONE_DEVICE memory.

The fix is to just replace pfn_to_page() with pfn_to_online_page() and
handle the error.

>> 		} else {
>> 			num_tags = mte_copy_tags_from_user(maddr, tags,
>> 							MTE_GRANULES_PER_PAGE);
>> 			kvm_release_pfn_dirty(pfn);
>> 		}
>>
>> 		if (num_tags != MTE_GRANULES_PER_PAGE) {
>> 			ret = -EFAULT;
>> 			goto out;
>> 		}
>>
>> 		if (write)
>> 			test_and_set_bit(PG_mte_tagged, &page->flags);
> 
> I think a set_bit() would do, I doubt it's any more efficient. But why

I'd seen test_and_set_bit() used elsewhere (I forget where now) as a
slightly more efficient approach. It complies down to a READ_ONCE and a
conditional atomic, vs a single non-conditional atomic. But I don't have
any actual data on the performance and this isn't a hot path, so I'll
switch to the more obvious set_bit().

> not add it in the 'else' block above where we actually wrote the tags?
> The copy function may have failed part-way through. Maybe your logic is
> correct though, there are invalid tags in the page. Just add a comment.

Yeah it's in case the write fails part way through - we don't want to
expose the tags which were not written. I'll add a comment to explain that.

Steve

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel