From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FA99C433F5 for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 09:46:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S243326AbiCWJr0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Mar 2022 05:47:26 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:44740 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S243312AbiCWJrX (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Mar 2022 05:47:23 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2569911C1E; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 02:45:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098410.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 22N9QBx9018452; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 09:45:53 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : date : mime-version : subject : to : cc : references : from : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=7LKmfYkYIAAQwIlj3rg0LsAEbnQObOItHI07v0dw0V4=; b=VL5MWpEXkIMAVk8EEV1rWblT12YxmIkoUrOI7XKS4qDh6fq/YmCWVEEljQQmczilQFDC Ro8Q8kSg/INEmPuC2KF0ajLK6ZY6OHqbnCq4usMrO/8OHgF9RaH2avVfbsL2JivpMVto jGglXOtQXhKZTHqKO2U17sWwwZHrgWPn7s7og7A9mzUNXaviWpndM7juP6mSNyScR9FA g6ivjJgZEpTnqgcoch/K4qUQvmC7cKj5cpQtuBERiZDdO5eoJRWZDOC7nuSaAiIxSl8w Yj4lDrkzIlX0PbWLJ8QxvJyAPJk/fLox6EnCO+M0kYN0/E7r7UJd+3Q7aCPfubD9U21s lw== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3f00wr8bff-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 23 Mar 2022 09:45:53 +0000 Received: from m0098410.ppops.net (m0098410.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 22N9SO7s022985; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 09:45:52 GMT Received: from ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (66.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.102]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3f00wr8beq-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 23 Mar 2022 09:45:52 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 22N9axDL024844; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 09:45:50 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.197]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3ew6ej08gq-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 23 Mar 2022 09:45:50 +0000 Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.232]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 22N9jlj216908550 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 23 Mar 2022 09:45:47 GMT Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 392F152050; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 09:45:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.171.50.35] (unknown [9.171.50.35]) by d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6B615204F; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 09:45:46 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 10:45:46 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: s390: Fix lockdep issue in vm memop Content-Language: en-US To: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch , Janosch Frank , Claudio Imbrenda , Heiko Carstens , Vasily Gorbik , Alexander Gordeev Cc: David Hildenbrand , Sven Schnelle , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20220322153204.2637400-1-scgl@linux.ibm.com> <44618f05-9aee-5aa5-b036-dd838285b26f@linux.ibm.com> <95c28949-8732-8812-c255-79467dafb5c8@linux.ibm.com> <7bcd8720-1c92-4e14-0c93-51d604f017a4@linux.ibm.com> <968319ed-ae4b-02fe-41c4-06799e940d94@linux.ibm.com> <8dc4c812-5c92-fcb8-9322-efc41fc73e1e@linux.ibm.com> From: Christian Borntraeger In-Reply-To: <8dc4c812-5c92-fcb8-9322-efc41fc73e1e@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: N1fkA2LGWxYrCraW2S9-sUeT7aYt2gSA X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: f-zumIiEju4Yu7_UvVZvjBca1r-eFfjS X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.850,Hydra:6.0.425,FMLib:17.11.64.514 definitions=2022-03-23_05,2022-03-22_01,2022-02-23_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 impostorscore=0 clxscore=1015 bulkscore=0 priorityscore=1501 phishscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2202240000 definitions=main-2203230055 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am 23.03.22 um 10:39 schrieb Janis Schoetterl-Glausch: > On 3/23/22 10:30, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >> >> >> 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. > > Ok, want me to send a v2? I can fixup when applying. Done and queued for kvm. >> >>> >>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> Makes sense to me. >>>>> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Janosch Frank >>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>>    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 >>>>> >>>> >>> >