Linux-Sgx Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
* [PATCH for_v21 0/2] x86/sgx: Use SRCU and mmu_notifier
@ 2019-07-11 16:16 Sean Christopherson
  2019-07-11 16:16 ` [PATCH for_v21 1/2] x86/sgx: Use SRCU to protect mm_list during reclaim Sean Christopherson
                   ` (3 more replies)
  0 siblings, 4 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Sean Christopherson @ 2019-07-11 16:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jarkko Sakkinen; +Cc: linux-sgx

Add SRCU support in a standalone patch.  I included the mmu_notifier patch
as well so that you can compare approaches without having to wait on me
for additional input.

Sean Christopherson (2):
  x86/sgx: Use SRCU to protect mm_list during reclaim
  x86/sgx: Use mmu_notifier.release() instead of per-vma refcounting

 arch/x86/Kconfig                      |   2 +
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/driver/main.c |  60 +++++----
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c        | 182 +++++++++++++-------------
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.h        |  12 +-
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/reclaim.c     |  71 ++++------
 5 files changed, 158 insertions(+), 169 deletions(-)

-- 
2.22.0


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* [PATCH for_v21 1/2] x86/sgx: Use SRCU to protect mm_list during reclaim
  2019-07-11 16:16 [PATCH for_v21 0/2] x86/sgx: Use SRCU and mmu_notifier Sean Christopherson
@ 2019-07-11 16:16 ` Sean Christopherson
  2019-07-11 21:13   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
  2019-07-11 16:16 ` [PATCH for_v21 2/2] x86/sgx: Use mmu_notifier.release() instead of per-vma refcounting Sean Christopherson
                   ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  3 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Sean Christopherson @ 2019-07-11 16:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jarkko Sakkinen; +Cc: linux-sgx

Reclaiming enclaves faces a bit of a conundrum when it comes to lock
ordering.  The reclaim flows need to take mmap_sem for read, e.g. to age
and zap PTEs on arbitrary mm_structs.  But reclaim must first walk the
enclave's list of mm_structs, which could be modified asynchronously to
reclaim.  Because modifying the list of mm_structs is done in reaction
to vma changes, i.e. with mmap_sem held exclusively, taking enclave's
mm_lock to protect the list walk in reclaim would lead to deadlocks due
to conflicting lock ordering.  To avoid this, SGX currently uses a
custom walker that drops mm_lock and restarts the walk as needed.

Use SRCU to protect reclaim instead of using a custom walker to avoid
the aforementioned lock issues.  Using SRCU improves readability in the
reclaimer by eliminating the need to juggle mm_lock during reclaim since
it can take mmap_sem() underneath srcu_read_lock().  And since relcaim
doesn't drop its SRCU read lock, there is no need to grab a reference to
encl_mm.

Not taking a reference to encl_mm is not just an optimization, it's also
functionally necessary and a major motivation to moving to SRCu. Putting
the reference can invoke sgx_encl_mm_release(), which calls
synchronize_srcu() and will deadlock if done while holding the SRCU read
lock.  Not taking a reference paves the way for additional refcounting
improvements that would be extremely difficult to implement when using
the custom walker due to cyclical dependencies on the refcount.

Speaking of sgx_encl_mm_release(), the whole purpose of using SRCU is
that sgx_encl_mm_release() is blocked (if called on another cpu) by
synchronize_srcu(), which in turn prevents mmdrop() from freeing the
mm_struct while reclaim is in the SRCU critical section.  Ultimately,
reclaim just needs to ensure mm_struct isn't freed so that it can call
mmget_not_zero() to prevent the page tables from being dropped while it
accesses PTEs, i.e. it doesn't matter if the encl_mm is dying, reclaim
just needs to make sure it's not fully dead.

To avoid calling synchronize_rcu() while holding rcu_read_lock(), use
mmput_async() in the reclaimer, e.g. __mmput() closes all VMAs, thus
triggering sgx_encl_mm_release() and synchronize_srcu().  Alternatively
sgx_encl_mm_release() could always call synchronize_rcu() in a worker
thread (see below), but doing __mmput() in a worker thread is desirable
from an SGX performance perspective, i.e. doesn't stall the reclaimer
CPU to release the mm.

And finally, the last deadlock scenario is if sgx_encl_mm_release() is
invoked on an in-use mm_struct, e.g. via munmap().

CPU0                     CPU1
munmap()
down_write(&mmap_sem)
                         srcu_read_lock()

synchronize_srcu()
                         down_read(&mmap_sem) <- deadlock

Avoid deadlock in this scenario by synchronizing SRCU via a worker
thread.  SRCU ensures only the liveliness of the mm_struct itself,
which is guaranteed by an mmgrab() prior to scheduling the work.
The reclaimer is responsible for checking mm_users and the VMAs to
ensure it doesn't touch stale PTEs, i.e. delaying synchronization does
not affect the reclaimer's responsiblities.  The delay does add one new
wrinkle in that sgx_encl_mm_add() and sgx_vma_open() can see a dying
encl_mm.  Previously this was prevented by virtue of sgx_vma_close()
being mutually exclusive (the caller must hold down_write(&mmap_sem)).
Handle such a case by using kref_get_unless_zero().

Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
---
 arch/x86/Kconfig                      |   1 +
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/driver/main.c |  34 ++----
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c        | 165 ++++++++++++++------------
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.h        |   9 +-
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/reclaim.c     |  71 ++++-------
 5 files changed, 124 insertions(+), 156 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
index a0fd17c32521..17558cf48a8a 100644
--- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
@@ -1918,6 +1918,7 @@ config X86_INTEL_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS
 config INTEL_SGX
 	bool "Intel SGX core functionality"
 	depends on X86_64 && CPU_SUP_INTEL
+	select SRCU
 	---help---
 	  Intel(R) SGX is a set of CPU instructions that can be used by
 	  applications to set aside private regions of code and data, referred
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/driver/main.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/driver/main.c
index c7fc32e26105..27076754f7d8 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/driver/main.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/driver/main.c
@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ u32 sgx_xsave_size_tbl[64];
 static int sgx_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
 {
 	struct sgx_encl *encl;
+	int ret;
 
 	encl = kzalloc(sizeof(*encl), GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!encl)
@@ -38,6 +39,12 @@ static int sgx_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
 	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&encl->mm_list);
 	spin_lock_init(&encl->mm_lock);
 
+	ret = init_srcu_struct(&encl->srcu);
+	if (ret) {
+		kfree(encl);
+		return ret;
+	}
+
 	file->private_data = encl;
 
 	return 0;
@@ -65,25 +72,6 @@ static long sgx_compat_ioctl(struct file *filep, unsigned int cmd,
 }
 #endif
 
-static int sgx_encl_mm_add(struct sgx_encl *encl, struct mm_struct *mm)
-{
-	struct sgx_encl_mm *encl_mm;
-
-	encl_mm = kzalloc(sizeof(*encl_mm), GFP_KERNEL);
-	if (!encl_mm)
-		return -ENOMEM;
-
-	encl_mm->encl = encl;
-	encl_mm->mm = mm;
-	kref_init(&encl_mm->refcount);
-
-	spin_lock(&encl->mm_lock);
-	list_add(&encl_mm->list, &encl->mm_list);
-	spin_unlock(&encl->mm_lock);
-
-	return 0;
-}
-
 /**
  * sgx_calc_vma_prot() - Calculate VMA prot bits
  * @encl:	an enclave
@@ -129,11 +117,9 @@ static int sgx_mmap(struct file *file, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
 	if (vma->vm_flags & (VM_READ | VM_WRITE | VM_EXEC) & ~vm_prot_bits)
 		return -EACCES;
 
-	if (!sgx_encl_get_mm(encl, vma->vm_mm)) {
-		ret = sgx_encl_mm_add(encl, vma->vm_mm);
-		if (ret)
-			return ret;
-	}
+	ret = sgx_encl_mm_add(encl, vma->vm_mm);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
 
 	if (!(vm_prot_bits & VM_READ))
 		vma->vm_flags &= ~VM_MAYREAD;
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c
index 853ea8ef3ada..64ae7d705eb1 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c
@@ -132,62 +132,116 @@ static struct sgx_encl_page *sgx_encl_load_page(struct sgx_encl *encl,
 	return entry;
 }
 
-void sgx_encl_mm_release(struct kref *ref)
+static void sgx_encl_mm_release_deferred(struct work_struct *work)
+{
+	struct sgx_encl_mm *encl_mm =
+		container_of(work, struct sgx_encl_mm, release_work);
+
+	mmdrop(encl_mm->mm);
+	synchronize_srcu(&encl_mm->encl->srcu);
+	kfree(encl_mm);
+}
+
+static void sgx_encl_mm_release(struct kref *ref)
 {
 	struct sgx_encl_mm *encl_mm =
 		container_of(ref, struct sgx_encl_mm, refcount);
 
 	spin_lock(&encl_mm->encl->mm_lock);
-	list_del(&encl_mm->list);
+	list_del_rcu(&encl_mm->list);
 	spin_unlock(&encl_mm->encl->mm_lock);
 
-	kfree(encl_mm);
+	/*
+	 * If the mm has users, then do SRCU synchronization in a worker thread
+	 * to avoid a deadlock with the reclaimer.  The caller holds mmap_sem
+	 * for write, while the reclaimer will acquire mmap_sem for read if it
+	 * is reclaiming from this enclave.  Invoking synchronize_srcu() here
+	 * will hang waiting for the reclaimer to drop its RCU read lock, while
+	 * the reclaimer will get stuck waiting to acquire mmap_sem.  The async
+	 * shenanigans can be avoided if there are no mm users as the reclaimer
+	 * will not acquire mmap_sem in that case.
+	 */
+	if (atomic_read(&encl_mm->mm->mm_users)) {
+		mmgrab(encl_mm->mm);
+		INIT_WORK(&encl_mm->release_work, sgx_encl_mm_release_deferred);
+		schedule_work(&encl_mm->release_work);
+	} else {
+		synchronize_srcu(&encl_mm->encl->srcu);
+		kfree(encl_mm);
+	}
 }
 
-struct sgx_encl_mm *sgx_encl_get_mm(struct sgx_encl *encl,
-				    struct mm_struct *mm)
+static struct sgx_encl_mm *sgx_encl_find_mm(struct sgx_encl *encl,
+					    struct mm_struct *mm)
 {
 	struct sgx_encl_mm *encl_mm = NULL;
-	struct sgx_encl_mm *prev_mm = NULL;
-	int iter;
+	struct sgx_encl_mm *tmp;
+	int idx;
 
-	while (true) {
-		encl_mm = sgx_encl_next_mm(encl, prev_mm, &iter);
-		if (prev_mm)
-			kref_put(&prev_mm->refcount, sgx_encl_mm_release);
-		prev_mm = encl_mm;
+	idx = srcu_read_lock(&encl->srcu);
 
-		if (iter == SGX_ENCL_MM_ITER_DONE)
+	list_for_each_entry_rcu(tmp, &encl->mm_list, list) {
+		if (tmp->mm == mm) {
+			encl_mm = tmp;
 			break;
-
-		if (iter == SGX_ENCL_MM_ITER_RESTART)
-			continue;
-
-		if (mm == encl_mm->mm)
-			return encl_mm;
+		}
 	}
 
-	return NULL;
+	srcu_read_unlock(&encl->srcu, idx);
+
+	return encl_mm;
 }
 
-
-static void sgx_vma_open(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
+int sgx_encl_mm_add(struct sgx_encl *encl, struct mm_struct *mm)
 {
-	struct sgx_encl *encl = vma->vm_private_data;
+	struct sgx_encl_mm *encl_mm;
 
-	if (!encl)
-		return;
+	lockdep_assert_held_exclusive(&mm->mmap_sem);
 
 	if (encl->flags & SGX_ENCL_DEAD)
-		goto error;
+		return -EINVAL;
 
-	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!sgx_encl_get_mm(encl, vma->vm_mm)))
-		goto error;
+	/*
+	 * A dying encl_mm can be observed when synchronize_srcu() is called
+	 * asynchronously via sgx_encl_mm_release(), e.g. if mmap() closely
+	 * follows munmap().
+	 */
+	encl_mm = sgx_encl_find_mm(encl, mm);
+	if (encl_mm && kref_get_unless_zero(&encl_mm->refcount))
+		return 0;
 
-	return;
+	encl_mm = kzalloc(sizeof(*encl_mm), GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (!encl_mm)
+		return -ENOMEM;
 
-error:
-	vma->vm_private_data = NULL;
+	encl_mm->encl = encl;
+	encl_mm->mm = mm;
+	kref_init(&encl_mm->refcount);
+
+	spin_lock(&encl->mm_lock);
+	list_add_rcu(&encl_mm->list, &encl->mm_list);
+	spin_unlock(&encl->mm_lock);
+
+	/*
+	 * Note, in addition to ensuring reclaim sees all encl_mms that have a
+	 * valid mapping, this synchronize_srcu() also ensures that at most one
+	 * matching encl_mm is encountered by the refcouting flows, i.e. a live
+	 * encl_mm isn't hiding behind a dying encl_mm.
+	 */
+	synchronize_srcu(&encl->srcu);
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static void sgx_vma_open(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
+{
+	struct sgx_encl *encl = vma->vm_private_data;
+
+	if (!encl)
+		return;
+
+	if (sgx_encl_mm_add(encl, vma->vm_mm))
+		vma->vm_private_data = NULL;
 }
 
 static void sgx_vma_close(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
@@ -198,13 +252,8 @@ static void sgx_vma_close(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
 	if (!encl)
 		return;
 
-	encl_mm = sgx_encl_get_mm(encl, vma->vm_mm);
-	if (!WARN_ON_ONCE(!encl_mm)) {
-		kref_put(&encl_mm->refcount, sgx_encl_mm_release);
-
-		/* Release kref for the VMA. */
-		kref_put(&encl_mm->refcount, sgx_encl_mm_release);
-	}
+	encl_mm = sgx_encl_find_mm(encl, vma->vm_mm);
+	kref_put(&encl_mm->refcount, sgx_encl_mm_release);
 }
 
 static unsigned int sgx_vma_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
@@ -476,46 +525,6 @@ struct page *sgx_encl_get_backing_page(struct sgx_encl *encl, pgoff_t index)
 	return shmem_read_mapping_page_gfp(mapping, index, gfpmask);
 }
 
-/**
- * sgx_encl_next_mm() - Iterate to the next mm
- * @encl:	an enclave
- * @mm:		an mm list entry
- * @iter:	iterator status
- *
- * Return: the enclave mm or NULL
- */
-struct sgx_encl_mm *sgx_encl_next_mm(struct sgx_encl *encl,
-				     struct sgx_encl_mm *encl_mm, int *iter)
-{
-	struct list_head *entry;
-
-	WARN(!encl, "%s: encl is NULL", __func__);
-	WARN(!iter, "%s: iter is NULL", __func__);
-
-	spin_lock(&encl->mm_lock);
-
-	entry = encl_mm ? encl_mm->list.next : encl->mm_list.next;
-	WARN(!entry, "%s: entry is NULL", __func__);
-
-	if (entry == &encl->mm_list) {
-		spin_unlock(&encl->mm_lock);
-		*iter = SGX_ENCL_MM_ITER_DONE;
-		return NULL;
-	}
-
-	encl_mm = list_entry(entry, struct sgx_encl_mm, list);
-
-	if (!kref_get_unless_zero(&encl_mm->refcount)) {
-		spin_unlock(&encl->mm_lock);
-		*iter = SGX_ENCL_MM_ITER_RESTART;
-		return NULL;
-	}
-
-	spin_unlock(&encl->mm_lock);
-	*iter = SGX_ENCL_MM_ITER_NEXT;
-	return encl_mm;
-}
-
 static int sgx_encl_test_and_clear_young_cb(pte_t *ptep, pgtable_t token,
 					    unsigned long addr, void *data)
 {
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.h b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.h
index 04f9ae7db68c..be0f7c08c37b 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.h
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.h
@@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
 #include <linux/mutex.h>
 #include <linux/notifier.h>
 #include <linux/radix-tree.h>
+#include <linux/srcu.h>
 #include <linux/workqueue.h>
 
 /**
@@ -59,6 +60,7 @@ struct sgx_encl_mm {
 	struct mm_struct *mm;
 	struct kref refcount;
 	struct list_head list;
+	struct work_struct release_work;
 };
 
 struct sgx_encl {
@@ -72,6 +74,7 @@ struct sgx_encl {
 	spinlock_t mm_lock;
 	struct file *backing;
 	struct kref refcount;
+	struct srcu_struct srcu;
 	unsigned long base;
 	unsigned long size;
 	unsigned long ssaframesize;
@@ -117,11 +120,7 @@ void sgx_encl_destroy(struct sgx_encl *encl);
 void sgx_encl_release(struct kref *ref);
 pgoff_t sgx_encl_get_index(struct sgx_encl *encl, struct sgx_encl_page *page);
 struct page *sgx_encl_get_backing_page(struct sgx_encl *encl, pgoff_t index);
-struct sgx_encl_mm *sgx_encl_next_mm(struct sgx_encl *encl,
-				     struct sgx_encl_mm *encl_mm, int *iter);
-void sgx_encl_mm_release(struct kref *ref);
-struct sgx_encl_mm *sgx_encl_get_mm(struct sgx_encl *encl,
-				    struct mm_struct *mm);
+int sgx_encl_mm_add(struct sgx_encl *encl, struct mm_struct *mm);
 int sgx_encl_test_and_clear_young(struct mm_struct *mm,
 				  struct sgx_encl_page *page);
 struct sgx_encl_page *sgx_encl_reserve_page(struct sgx_encl *encl,
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/reclaim.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/reclaim.c
index f192ade93245..e9427220415b 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/reclaim.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/reclaim.c
@@ -140,23 +140,13 @@ static bool sgx_reclaimer_evict(struct sgx_epc_page *epc_page)
 {
 	struct sgx_encl_page *page = epc_page->owner;
 	struct sgx_encl *encl = page->encl;
-	struct sgx_encl_mm *encl_mm = NULL;
-	struct sgx_encl_mm *prev_mm = NULL;
+	struct sgx_encl_mm *encl_mm;
 	bool ret = true;
-	int iter;
+	int idx;
 
-	while (true) {
-		encl_mm = sgx_encl_next_mm(encl, prev_mm, &iter);
-		if (prev_mm)
-			kref_put(&prev_mm->refcount, sgx_encl_mm_release);
-		prev_mm = encl_mm;
-
-		if (iter == SGX_ENCL_MM_ITER_DONE)
-			break;
-
-		if (iter == SGX_ENCL_MM_ITER_RESTART)
-			continue;
+	idx = srcu_read_lock(&encl->srcu);
 
+	list_for_each_entry_rcu(encl_mm, &encl->mm_list, list) {
 		if (!mmget_not_zero(encl_mm->mm))
 			continue;
 
@@ -164,14 +154,14 @@ static bool sgx_reclaimer_evict(struct sgx_epc_page *epc_page)
 		ret = !sgx_encl_test_and_clear_young(encl_mm->mm, page);
 		up_read(&encl_mm->mm->mmap_sem);
 
-		mmput(encl_mm->mm);
+		mmput_async(encl_mm->mm);
 
-		if (!ret || (encl->flags & SGX_ENCL_DEAD)) {
-			kref_put(&encl_mm->refcount, sgx_encl_mm_release);
+		if (!ret || (encl->flags & SGX_ENCL_DEAD))
 			break;
-		}
 	}
 
+	srcu_read_unlock(&encl->srcu, idx);
+
 	/*
 	 * Do not reclaim this page if it has been recently accessed by any
 	 * mm_struct *and* if the enclave is still alive.  No need to take
@@ -195,24 +185,13 @@ static void sgx_reclaimer_block(struct sgx_epc_page *epc_page)
 	struct sgx_encl_page *page = epc_page->owner;
 	unsigned long addr = SGX_ENCL_PAGE_ADDR(page);
 	struct sgx_encl *encl = page->encl;
-	struct sgx_encl_mm *encl_mm = NULL;
-	struct sgx_encl_mm *prev_mm = NULL;
+	struct sgx_encl_mm *encl_mm;
 	struct vm_area_struct *vma;
-	int iter;
-	int ret;
+	int idx, ret;
 
-	while (true) {
-		encl_mm = sgx_encl_next_mm(encl, prev_mm, &iter);
-		if (prev_mm)
-			kref_put(&prev_mm->refcount, sgx_encl_mm_release);
-		prev_mm = encl_mm;
-
-		if (iter == SGX_ENCL_MM_ITER_DONE)
-			break;
-
-		if (iter == SGX_ENCL_MM_ITER_RESTART)
-			continue;
+	idx = srcu_read_lock(&encl->srcu);
 
+	list_for_each_entry_rcu(encl_mm, &encl->mm_list, list) {
 		if (!mmget_not_zero(encl_mm->mm))
 			continue;
 
@@ -224,9 +203,11 @@ static void sgx_reclaimer_block(struct sgx_epc_page *epc_page)
 
 		up_read(&encl_mm->mm->mmap_sem);
 
-		mmput(encl_mm->mm);
+		mmput_async(encl_mm->mm);
 	}
 
+	srcu_read_unlock(&encl->srcu, idx);
+
 	mutex_lock(&encl->lock);
 
 	if (!(encl->flags & SGX_ENCL_DEAD)) {
@@ -289,32 +270,24 @@ static void sgx_ipi_cb(void *info)
 static const cpumask_t *sgx_encl_ewb_cpumask(struct sgx_encl *encl)
 {
 	cpumask_t *cpumask = &encl->cpumask;
-	struct sgx_encl_mm *encl_mm = NULL;
-	struct sgx_encl_mm *prev_mm = NULL;
-	int iter;
+	struct sgx_encl_mm *encl_mm;
+	int idx;
 
 	cpumask_clear(cpumask);
 
-	while (true) {
-		encl_mm = sgx_encl_next_mm(encl, prev_mm, &iter);
-		if (prev_mm)
-			kref_put(&prev_mm->refcount, sgx_encl_mm_release);
-		prev_mm = encl_mm;
-
-		if (iter == SGX_ENCL_MM_ITER_DONE)
-			break;
-
-		if (iter == SGX_ENCL_MM_ITER_RESTART)
-			continue;
+	idx = srcu_read_lock(&encl->srcu);
 
+	list_for_each_entry_rcu(encl_mm, &encl->mm_list, list) {
 		if (!mmget_not_zero(encl_mm->mm))
 			continue;
 
 		cpumask_or(cpumask, cpumask, mm_cpumask(encl_mm->mm));
 
-		mmput(encl_mm->mm);
+		mmput_async(encl_mm->mm);
 	}
 
+	srcu_read_unlock(&encl->srcu, idx);
+
 	return cpumask;
 }
 
-- 
2.22.0


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* [PATCH for_v21 2/2] x86/sgx: Use mmu_notifier.release() instead of per-vma refcounting
  2019-07-11 16:16 [PATCH for_v21 0/2] x86/sgx: Use SRCU and mmu_notifier Sean Christopherson
  2019-07-11 16:16 ` [PATCH for_v21 1/2] x86/sgx: Use SRCU to protect mm_list during reclaim Sean Christopherson
@ 2019-07-11 16:16 ` Sean Christopherson
  2019-07-11 21:16   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
  2019-07-11 18:01 ` [PATCH for_v21 0/2] x86/sgx: Use SRCU and mmu_notifier Jarkko Sakkinen
  2019-07-11 21:51 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
  3 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Sean Christopherson @ 2019-07-11 16:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jarkko Sakkinen; +Cc: linux-sgx

Using per-vma refcounting to track mm_structs associated with an enclave
requires hooking .vm_close(), which in turn prevents the mm from merging
vmas (precisely to allow refcounting).

Avoid refcounting encl_mm altogether by registering an mmu_notifier at
.mmap(), removing the dying encl_mm at mmu_notifier.release() and
protecting mm_list during reclaim via a per-enclave SRCU.

Removing refcounting/vm_close() allows merging of enclave vmas, at the
cost of delaying removal of encl_mm structs from mm_list, i.e. an mm is
disassociated from an enclave when the mm exits or the enclave dies, as
opposed to when the last vma (in a given mm) is closed.

The impact of delying encl_mm removal is its memory footprint and
whatever overhead is incurred during EPC reclaim (to walk an mm's vmas).
Practically speaking, a stale encl_mm will exist for a meaningful amount
of time if and only if the enclave is mapped in a long-lived process and
then passed off to another long-lived process.  It is expected that the
vast majority of use cases will not encounter this condition, e.g. even
using a daemon to build enclaves should not result in a stale encl_mm as
the builder should never need to mmap() the enclave.

Even if there are scenarios that lead to defunct encl_mms, the cost is
likely far outweighed by the benefits of reducing the number of vmas
across all enclaves.

Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
---
 arch/x86/Kconfig                      |  1 +
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/driver/main.c | 26 ++++++++
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c        | 89 ++++++++++++---------------
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.h        |  5 +-
 4 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
index 17558cf48a8a..2957dc59e622 100644
--- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
@@ -1919,6 +1919,7 @@ config INTEL_SGX
 	bool "Intel SGX core functionality"
 	depends on X86_64 && CPU_SUP_INTEL
 	select SRCU
+	select MMU_NOTIFIER
 	---help---
 	  Intel(R) SGX is a set of CPU instructions that can be used by
 	  applications to set aside private regions of code and data, referred
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/driver/main.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/driver/main.c
index 27076754f7d8..5571954d7109 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/driver/main.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/driver/main.c
@@ -53,6 +53,32 @@ static int sgx_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
 static int sgx_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
 {
 	struct sgx_encl *encl = file->private_data;
+	struct sgx_encl_mm *encl_mm;
+
+	/*
+	 * Objects can't be *moved* off an RCU protected list (deletion is ok),
+	 * nor can the object be freed until after synchronize_srcu().
+	 */
+restart:
+	spin_lock(&encl->mm_lock);
+	if (list_empty(&encl->mm_list)) {
+		encl_mm = NULL;
+	} else {
+		encl_mm = list_first_entry(&encl->mm_list, struct sgx_encl_mm,
+					   list);
+		list_del_rcu(&encl_mm->list);
+	}
+	spin_unlock(&encl->mm_lock);
+
+	if (encl_mm) {
+		synchronize_srcu(&encl->srcu);
+
+		mmu_notifier_unregister(&encl_mm->mmu_notifier, encl_mm->mm);
+
+		kfree(encl_mm);
+
+		goto restart;
+	}
 
 	mutex_lock(&encl->lock);
 	encl->flags |= SGX_ENCL_DEAD;
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c
index 64ae7d705eb1..fc12b8c01629 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c
@@ -132,45 +132,51 @@ static struct sgx_encl_page *sgx_encl_load_page(struct sgx_encl *encl,
 	return entry;
 }
 
-static void sgx_encl_mm_release_deferred(struct work_struct *work)
+static void sgx_encl_mm_release_deferred(struct rcu_head *rcu)
 {
 	struct sgx_encl_mm *encl_mm =
-		container_of(work, struct sgx_encl_mm, release_work);
+		container_of(rcu, struct sgx_encl_mm, rcu);
 
-	mmdrop(encl_mm->mm);
-	synchronize_srcu(&encl_mm->encl->srcu);
 	kfree(encl_mm);
 }
 
-static void sgx_encl_mm_release(struct kref *ref)
+static void sgx_mmu_notifier_release(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
+				     struct mm_struct *mm)
 {
 	struct sgx_encl_mm *encl_mm =
-		container_of(ref, struct sgx_encl_mm, refcount);
+		container_of(mn, struct sgx_encl_mm, mmu_notifier);
+	struct sgx_encl_mm *tmp = NULL;
 
+	/*
+	 * The enclave itself can remove encl_mm.  Note, objects can't be moved
+	 * off an RCU protected list, but deletion is ok.
+	 */
 	spin_lock(&encl_mm->encl->mm_lock);
-	list_del_rcu(&encl_mm->list);
+	list_for_each_entry(tmp, &encl_mm->encl->mm_list, list) {
+		if (tmp == encl_mm) {
+			list_del_rcu(&encl_mm->list);
+			break;
+		}
+	}
 	spin_unlock(&encl_mm->encl->mm_lock);
 
-	/*
-	 * If the mm has users, then do SRCU synchronization in a worker thread
-	 * to avoid a deadlock with the reclaimer.  The caller holds mmap_sem
-	 * for write, while the reclaimer will acquire mmap_sem for read if it
-	 * is reclaiming from this enclave.  Invoking synchronize_srcu() here
-	 * will hang waiting for the reclaimer to drop its RCU read lock, while
-	 * the reclaimer will get stuck waiting to acquire mmap_sem.  The async
-	 * shenanigans can be avoided if there are no mm users as the reclaimer
-	 * will not acquire mmap_sem in that case.
-	 */
-	if (atomic_read(&encl_mm->mm->mm_users)) {
-		mmgrab(encl_mm->mm);
-		INIT_WORK(&encl_mm->release_work, sgx_encl_mm_release_deferred);
-		schedule_work(&encl_mm->release_work);
-	} else {
+	if (tmp == encl_mm) {
 		synchronize_srcu(&encl_mm->encl->srcu);
-		kfree(encl_mm);
+
+		/*
+		 * Delay freeing encl_mm until after mmu_notifier synchronizes
+		 * its SRCU to ensure encl_mm cannot be dereferenced.
+		 */
+		mmu_notifier_unregister_no_release(mn, mm);
+		mmu_notifier_call_srcu(&encl_mm->rcu,
+				       &sgx_encl_mm_release_deferred);
 	}
 }
 
+static const struct mmu_notifier_ops sgx_mmu_notifier_ops = {
+	.release		= sgx_mmu_notifier_release,
+};
+
 static struct sgx_encl_mm *sgx_encl_find_mm(struct sgx_encl *encl,
 					    struct mm_struct *mm)
 {
@@ -195,6 +201,7 @@ static struct sgx_encl_mm *sgx_encl_find_mm(struct sgx_encl *encl,
 int sgx_encl_mm_add(struct sgx_encl *encl, struct mm_struct *mm)
 {
 	struct sgx_encl_mm *encl_mm;
+	int ret;
 
 	lockdep_assert_held_exclusive(&mm->mmap_sem);
 
@@ -202,12 +209,11 @@ int sgx_encl_mm_add(struct sgx_encl *encl, struct mm_struct *mm)
 		return -EINVAL;
 
 	/*
-	 * A dying encl_mm can be observed when synchronize_srcu() is called
-	 * asynchronously via sgx_encl_mm_release(), e.g. if mmap() closely
-	 * follows munmap().
+	 * mm_structs are kept on mm_list until the mm or the enclave dies,
+	 * i.e. once an mm is off the list, it's gone for good, therefore it's
+	 * impossible to get a false positive on @mm due to a stale mm_list.
 	 */
-	encl_mm = sgx_encl_find_mm(encl, mm);
-	if (encl_mm && kref_get_unless_zero(&encl_mm->refcount))
+	if (sgx_encl_find_mm(encl, mm))
 		return 0;
 
 	encl_mm = kzalloc(sizeof(*encl_mm), GFP_KERNEL);
@@ -216,18 +222,18 @@ int sgx_encl_mm_add(struct sgx_encl *encl, struct mm_struct *mm)
 
 	encl_mm->encl = encl;
 	encl_mm->mm = mm;
-	kref_init(&encl_mm->refcount);
+	encl_mm->mmu_notifier.ops = &sgx_mmu_notifier_ops;
+
+	ret = __mmu_notifier_register(&encl_mm->mmu_notifier, mm);
+	if (ret) {
+		kfree(encl_mm);
+		return ret;
+	}
 
 	spin_lock(&encl->mm_lock);
 	list_add_rcu(&encl_mm->list, &encl->mm_list);
 	spin_unlock(&encl->mm_lock);
 
-	/*
-	 * Note, in addition to ensuring reclaim sees all encl_mms that have a
-	 * valid mapping, this synchronize_srcu() also ensures that at most one
-	 * matching encl_mm is encountered by the refcouting flows, i.e. a live
-	 * encl_mm isn't hiding behind a dying encl_mm.
-	 */
 	synchronize_srcu(&encl->srcu);
 
 	return 0;
@@ -244,18 +250,6 @@ static void sgx_vma_open(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
 		vma->vm_private_data = NULL;
 }
 
-static void sgx_vma_close(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
-{
-	struct sgx_encl *encl = vma->vm_private_data;
-	struct sgx_encl_mm *encl_mm;
-
-	if (!encl)
-		return;
-
-	encl_mm = sgx_encl_find_mm(encl, vma->vm_mm);
-	kref_put(&encl_mm->refcount, sgx_encl_mm_release);
-}
-
 static unsigned int sgx_vma_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
 {
 	unsigned long addr = (unsigned long)vmf->address;
@@ -391,7 +385,6 @@ static int sgx_vma_access(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr,
 }
 
 const struct vm_operations_struct sgx_vm_ops = {
-	.close = sgx_vma_close,
 	.open = sgx_vma_open,
 	.fault = sgx_vma_fault,
 	.access = sgx_vma_access,
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.h b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.h
index be0f7c08c37b..808faf70f7ae 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.h
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.h
@@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
 #include <linux/kref.h>
 #include <linux/list.h>
 #include <linux/mm_types.h>
+#include <linux/mmu_notifier.h>
 #include <linux/mutex.h>
 #include <linux/notifier.h>
 #include <linux/radix-tree.h>
@@ -58,9 +59,9 @@ enum sgx_encl_flags {
 struct sgx_encl_mm {
 	struct sgx_encl *encl;
 	struct mm_struct *mm;
-	struct kref refcount;
 	struct list_head list;
-	struct work_struct release_work;
+	struct mmu_notifier mmu_notifier;
+	struct rcu_head rcu;
 };
 
 struct sgx_encl {
-- 
2.22.0


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH for_v21 0/2] x86/sgx: Use SRCU and mmu_notifier
  2019-07-11 16:16 [PATCH for_v21 0/2] x86/sgx: Use SRCU and mmu_notifier Sean Christopherson
  2019-07-11 16:16 ` [PATCH for_v21 1/2] x86/sgx: Use SRCU to protect mm_list during reclaim Sean Christopherson
  2019-07-11 16:16 ` [PATCH for_v21 2/2] x86/sgx: Use mmu_notifier.release() instead of per-vma refcounting Sean Christopherson
@ 2019-07-11 18:01 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
  2019-07-11 21:51 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jarkko Sakkinen @ 2019-07-11 18:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Sean Christopherson; +Cc: linux-sgx

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 09:16:23AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Add SRCU support in a standalone patch.  I included the mmu_notifier patch
> as well so that you can compare approaches without having to wait on me
> for additional input.

Might even take both now that I undertsand the vma_close() scenario.
Lets see...

/Jarkko

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH for_v21 1/2] x86/sgx: Use SRCU to protect mm_list during reclaim
  2019-07-11 16:16 ` [PATCH for_v21 1/2] x86/sgx: Use SRCU to protect mm_list during reclaim Sean Christopherson
@ 2019-07-11 21:13   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
  2019-07-11 21:25     ` Sean Christopherson
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jarkko Sakkinen @ 2019-07-11 21:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Sean Christopherson; +Cc: linux-sgx

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 09:16:24AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Reclaiming enclaves faces a bit of a conundrum when it comes to lock
> ordering.  The reclaim flows need to take mmap_sem for read, e.g. to age
> and zap PTEs on arbitrary mm_structs.  But reclaim must first walk the
> enclave's list of mm_structs, which could be modified asynchronously to
> reclaim.  Because modifying the list of mm_structs is done in reaction
> to vma changes, i.e. with mmap_sem held exclusively, taking enclave's
> mm_lock to protect the list walk in reclaim would lead to deadlocks due
> to conflicting lock ordering.  To avoid this, SGX currently uses a
> custom walker that drops mm_lock and restarts the walk as needed.

+1

> Use SRCU to protect reclaim instead of using a custom walker to avoid
> the aforementioned lock issues.  Using SRCU improves readability in the
> reclaimer by eliminating the need to juggle mm_lock during reclaim since
> it can take mmap_sem() underneath srcu_read_lock().  And since relcaim
> doesn't drop its SRCU read lock, there is no need to grab a reference to
> encl_mm.

Speaking about "lock issue" would mean to me an actual regression. I do
agree that SRCU is a the right step forward.

> Not taking a reference to encl_mm is not just an optimization, it's also
> functionally necessary and a major motivation to moving to SRCu. Putting
> the reference can invoke sgx_encl_mm_release(), which calls
> synchronize_srcu() and will deadlock if done while holding the SRCU read
> lock.  Not taking a reference paves the way for additional refcounting
> improvements that would be extremely difficult to implement when using
> the custom walker due to cyclical dependencies on the refcount.

I'm not sure I get this. The existing code does not have a call to
synchronize_srcu().

> Speaking of sgx_encl_mm_release(), the whole purpose of using SRCU is
> that sgx_encl_mm_release() is blocked (if called on another cpu) by
> synchronize_srcu(), which in turn prevents mmdrop() from freeing the
> mm_struct while reclaim is in the SRCU critical section.  Ultimately,
> reclaim just needs to ensure mm_struct isn't freed so that it can call
> mmget_not_zero() to prevent the page tables from being dropped while it
> accesses PTEs, i.e. it doesn't matter if the encl_mm is dying, reclaim
> just needs to make sure it's not fully dead.

+1

> To avoid calling synchronize_rcu() while holding rcu_read_lock(), use
> mmput_async() in the reclaimer, e.g. __mmput() closes all VMAs, thus
> triggering sgx_encl_mm_release() and synchronize_srcu().  Alternatively
> sgx_encl_mm_release() could always call synchronize_rcu() in a worker
> thread (see below), but doing __mmput() in a worker thread is desirable
> from an SGX performance perspective, i.e. doesn't stall the reclaimer
> CPU to release the mm.

+1

> 
> And finally, the last deadlock scenario is if sgx_encl_mm_release() is
> invoked on an in-use mm_struct, e.g. via munmap().
> 
> CPU0                     CPU1
> munmap()
> down_write(&mmap_sem)
>                          srcu_read_lock()
> 
> synchronize_srcu()
>                          down_read(&mmap_sem) <- deadlock
> 
> Avoid deadlock in this scenario by synchronizing SRCU via a worker
> thread.  SRCU ensures only the liveliness of the mm_struct itself,
> which is guaranteed by an mmgrab() prior to scheduling the work.
> The reclaimer is responsible for checking mm_users and the VMAs to
> ensure it doesn't touch stale PTEs, i.e. delaying synchronization does
> not affect the reclaimer's responsiblities.  The delay does add one new
> wrinkle in that sgx_encl_mm_add() and sgx_vma_open() can see a dying
> encl_mm.  Previously this was prevented by virtue of sgx_vma_close()
> being mutually exclusive (the caller must hold down_write(&mmap_sem)).
> Handle such a case by using kref_get_unless_zero().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/Kconfig                      |   1 +
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/driver/main.c |  34 ++----
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c        | 165 ++++++++++++++------------
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.h        |   9 +-
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/reclaim.c     |  71 ++++-------
>  5 files changed, 124 insertions(+), 156 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> index a0fd17c32521..17558cf48a8a 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> @@ -1918,6 +1918,7 @@ config X86_INTEL_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS
>  config INTEL_SGX
>  	bool "Intel SGX core functionality"
>  	depends on X86_64 && CPU_SUP_INTEL
> +	select SRCU
>  	---help---
>  	  Intel(R) SGX is a set of CPU instructions that can be used by
>  	  applications to set aside private regions of code and data, referred
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/driver/main.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/driver/main.c
> index c7fc32e26105..27076754f7d8 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/driver/main.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/driver/main.c
> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ u32 sgx_xsave_size_tbl[64];
>  static int sgx_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
>  {
>  	struct sgx_encl *encl;
> +	int ret;
>  
>  	encl = kzalloc(sizeof(*encl), GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!encl)
> @@ -38,6 +39,12 @@ static int sgx_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
>  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&encl->mm_list);
>  	spin_lock_init(&encl->mm_lock);
>  
> +	ret = init_srcu_struct(&encl->srcu);
> +	if (ret) {
> +		kfree(encl);
> +		return ret;
> +	}
> +
>  	file->private_data = encl;
>  
>  	return 0;
> @@ -65,25 +72,6 @@ static long sgx_compat_ioctl(struct file *filep, unsigned int cmd,
>  }
>  #endif
>  
> -static int sgx_encl_mm_add(struct sgx_encl *encl, struct mm_struct *mm)
> -{
> -	struct sgx_encl_mm *encl_mm;
> -
> -	encl_mm = kzalloc(sizeof(*encl_mm), GFP_KERNEL);
> -	if (!encl_mm)
> -		return -ENOMEM;
> -
> -	encl_mm->encl = encl;
> -	encl_mm->mm = mm;
> -	kref_init(&encl_mm->refcount);
> -
> -	spin_lock(&encl->mm_lock);
> -	list_add(&encl_mm->list, &encl->mm_list);
> -	spin_unlock(&encl->mm_lock);
> -
> -	return 0;
> -}
> -
>  /**
>   * sgx_calc_vma_prot() - Calculate VMA prot bits
>   * @encl:	an enclave
> @@ -129,11 +117,9 @@ static int sgx_mmap(struct file *file, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>  	if (vma->vm_flags & (VM_READ | VM_WRITE | VM_EXEC) & ~vm_prot_bits)
>  		return -EACCES;
>  
> -	if (!sgx_encl_get_mm(encl, vma->vm_mm)) {
> -		ret = sgx_encl_mm_add(encl, vma->vm_mm);
> -		if (ret)
> -			return ret;
> -	}
> +	ret = sgx_encl_mm_add(encl, vma->vm_mm);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
>  
>  	if (!(vm_prot_bits & VM_READ))
>  		vma->vm_flags &= ~VM_MAYREAD;
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c
> index 853ea8ef3ada..64ae7d705eb1 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c
> @@ -132,62 +132,116 @@ static struct sgx_encl_page *sgx_encl_load_page(struct sgx_encl *encl,
>  	return entry;
>  }
>  
> -void sgx_encl_mm_release(struct kref *ref)
> +static void sgx_encl_mm_release_deferred(struct work_struct *work)
> +{
> +	struct sgx_encl_mm *encl_mm =
> +		container_of(work, struct sgx_encl_mm, release_work);
> +
> +	mmdrop(encl_mm->mm);
> +	synchronize_srcu(&encl_mm->encl->srcu);
> +	kfree(encl_mm);
> +}
> +
> +static void sgx_encl_mm_release(struct kref *ref)
>  {
>  	struct sgx_encl_mm *encl_mm =
>  		container_of(ref, struct sgx_encl_mm, refcount);
>  
>  	spin_lock(&encl_mm->encl->mm_lock);
> -	list_del(&encl_mm->list);
> +	list_del_rcu(&encl_mm->list);
>  	spin_unlock(&encl_mm->encl->mm_lock);
>  
> -	kfree(encl_mm);
> +	/*
> +	 * If the mm has users, then do SRCU synchronization in a worker thread
> +	 * to avoid a deadlock with the reclaimer.  The caller holds mmap_sem
> +	 * for write, while the reclaimer will acquire mmap_sem for read if it
> +	 * is reclaiming from this enclave.  Invoking synchronize_srcu() here
> +	 * will hang waiting for the reclaimer to drop its RCU read lock, while
> +	 * the reclaimer will get stuck waiting to acquire mmap_sem.  The async
> +	 * shenanigans can be avoided if there are no mm users as the reclaimer
> +	 * will not acquire mmap_sem in that case.
> +	 */
> +	if (atomic_read(&encl_mm->mm->mm_users)) {
> +		mmgrab(encl_mm->mm);
> +		INIT_WORK(&encl_mm->release_work, sgx_encl_mm_release_deferred);
> +		schedule_work(&encl_mm->release_work);
> +	} else {
> +		synchronize_srcu(&encl_mm->encl->srcu);
> +		kfree(encl_mm);
> +	}
>  }
>  
> -struct sgx_encl_mm *sgx_encl_get_mm(struct sgx_encl *encl,
> -				    struct mm_struct *mm)
> +static struct sgx_encl_mm *sgx_encl_find_mm(struct sgx_encl *encl,
> +					    struct mm_struct *mm)
>  {
>  	struct sgx_encl_mm *encl_mm = NULL;
> -	struct sgx_encl_mm *prev_mm = NULL;
> -	int iter;
> +	struct sgx_encl_mm *tmp;
> +	int idx;
>  
> -	while (true) {
> -		encl_mm = sgx_encl_next_mm(encl, prev_mm, &iter);
> -		if (prev_mm)
> -			kref_put(&prev_mm->refcount, sgx_encl_mm_release);
> -		prev_mm = encl_mm;
> +	idx = srcu_read_lock(&encl->srcu);
>  
> -		if (iter == SGX_ENCL_MM_ITER_DONE)
> +	list_for_each_entry_rcu(tmp, &encl->mm_list, list) {
> +		if (tmp->mm == mm) {
> +			encl_mm = tmp;
>  			break;
> -
> -		if (iter == SGX_ENCL_MM_ITER_RESTART)
> -			continue;
> -
> -		if (mm == encl_mm->mm)
> -			return encl_mm;
> +		}
>  	}
>  
> -	return NULL;
> +	srcu_read_unlock(&encl->srcu, idx);
> +
> +	return encl_mm;
>  }
>  
> -
> -static void sgx_vma_open(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> +int sgx_encl_mm_add(struct sgx_encl *encl, struct mm_struct *mm)
>  {
> -	struct sgx_encl *encl = vma->vm_private_data;
> +	struct sgx_encl_mm *encl_mm;
>  
> -	if (!encl)
> -		return;
> +	lockdep_assert_held_exclusive(&mm->mmap_sem);

Just a question: what does it check (12:10AM too tired to check,
apologies)?

Anyway, no blocking issues. Thank you.

Acked-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>

/Jarkko

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH for_v21 2/2] x86/sgx: Use mmu_notifier.release() instead of per-vma refcounting
  2019-07-11 16:16 ` [PATCH for_v21 2/2] x86/sgx: Use mmu_notifier.release() instead of per-vma refcounting Sean Christopherson
@ 2019-07-11 21:16   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jarkko Sakkinen @ 2019-07-11 21:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Sean Christopherson; +Cc: linux-sgx

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 09:16:25AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Using per-vma refcounting to track mm_structs associated with an enclave
> requires hooking .vm_close(), which in turn prevents the mm from merging
> vmas (precisely to allow refcounting).
> 
> Avoid refcounting encl_mm altogether by registering an mmu_notifier at
> .mmap(), removing the dying encl_mm at mmu_notifier.release() and
> protecting mm_list during reclaim via a per-enclave SRCU.
> 
> Removing refcounting/vm_close() allows merging of enclave vmas, at the
> cost of delaying removal of encl_mm structs from mm_list, i.e. an mm is
> disassociated from an enclave when the mm exits or the enclave dies, as
> opposed to when the last vma (in a given mm) is closed.
> 
> The impact of delying encl_mm removal is its memory footprint and
> whatever overhead is incurred during EPC reclaim (to walk an mm's vmas).
> Practically speaking, a stale encl_mm will exist for a meaningful amount
> of time if and only if the enclave is mapped in a long-lived process and
> then passed off to another long-lived process.  It is expected that the
> vast majority of use cases will not encounter this condition, e.g. even
> using a daemon to build enclaves should not result in a stale encl_mm as
> the builder should never need to mmap() the enclave.
> 
> Even if there are scenarios that lead to defunct encl_mms, the cost is
> likely far outweighed by the benefits of reducing the number of vmas
> across all enclaves.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>

I don't think the stalled encl_mm's are a blocking issue for anything.
Can be even upstreamed with that. Good enough.

Acked-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>

/Jarkko

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH for_v21 1/2] x86/sgx: Use SRCU to protect mm_list during reclaim
  2019-07-11 21:13   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
@ 2019-07-11 21:25     ` Sean Christopherson
  2019-07-12  3:44       ` Jarkko Sakkinen
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Sean Christopherson @ 2019-07-11 21:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jarkko Sakkinen; +Cc: linux-sgx

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 12:13:07AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 09:16:24AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Not taking a reference to encl_mm is not just an optimization, it's also
> > functionally necessary and a major motivation to moving to SRCu. Putting
> > the reference can invoke sgx_encl_mm_release(), which calls
> > synchronize_srcu() and will deadlock if done while holding the SRCU read
> > lock.  Not taking a reference paves the way for additional refcounting
> > improvements that would be extremely difficult to implement when using
> > the custom walker due to cyclical dependencies on the refcount.
> 
> I'm not sure I get this. The existing code does not have a call to
> synchronize_srcu().

Does this read any better?

  Not taking a reference to encl_mm is not just an optimization, it's also
  functionally necessary and a major motivation to moving to SRCU.  From a
  functional perspective, putting the encl_mm reference can invoke
  sgx_encl_mm_release(), which now calls synchronize_srcu() and thus will
  deadlock if triggered while holding the SRCU read lock.  In terms of
  motivation, not taking a reference paves the way for additional refcounting
  improvements that would be extremely difficult to implement when using
  the custom walker due to cyclical dependencies on the encl_mm's refcount.
 
> > -	if (!encl)
> > -		return;
> > +	lockdep_assert_held_exclusive(&mm->mmap_sem);
> 
> Just a question: what does it check (12:10AM too tired to check,
> apologies)?

Asserts that the caller has done down_write(&mmap_sem), i.e. guarantees
that sgx_encl_mm_add() cannot be called in parallel on the same mm_struct.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH for_v21 0/2] x86/sgx: Use SRCU and mmu_notifier
  2019-07-11 16:16 [PATCH for_v21 0/2] x86/sgx: Use SRCU and mmu_notifier Sean Christopherson
                   ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2019-07-11 18:01 ` [PATCH for_v21 0/2] x86/sgx: Use SRCU and mmu_notifier Jarkko Sakkinen
@ 2019-07-11 21:51 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
  2019-07-12  4:17   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
  3 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jarkko Sakkinen @ 2019-07-11 21:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Sean Christopherson; +Cc: linux-sgx

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 09:16:23AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Add SRCU support in a standalone patch.  I included the mmu_notifier patch
> as well so that you can compare approaches without having to wait on me
> for additional input.

Can you rebase these to the latest master. I'll apply them once
I wake up (about 1AM now). Could just work around with raw patch
would need to get sleep first anyway. Thanks.

/Jarkko

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH for_v21 1/2] x86/sgx: Use SRCU to protect mm_list during reclaim
  2019-07-11 21:25     ` Sean Christopherson
@ 2019-07-12  3:44       ` Jarkko Sakkinen
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jarkko Sakkinen @ 2019-07-12  3:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Sean Christopherson; +Cc: linux-sgx

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 02:25:49PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 12:13:07AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 09:16:24AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > Not taking a reference to encl_mm is not just an optimization, it's also
> > > functionally necessary and a major motivation to moving to SRCu. Putting
> > > the reference can invoke sgx_encl_mm_release(), which calls
> > > synchronize_srcu() and will deadlock if done while holding the SRCU read
> > > lock.  Not taking a reference paves the way for additional refcounting
> > > improvements that would be extremely difficult to implement when using
> > > the custom walker due to cyclical dependencies on the refcount.
> > 
> > I'm not sure I get this. The existing code does not have a call to
> > synchronize_srcu().
> 
> Does this read any better?
> 
>   Not taking a reference to encl_mm is not just an optimization, it's also
>   functionally necessary and a major motivation to moving to SRCU.  From a
>   functional perspective, putting the encl_mm reference can invoke
>   sgx_encl_mm_release(), which now calls synchronize_srcu() and thus will
>   deadlock if triggered while holding the SRCU read lock.  In terms of
>   motivation, not taking a reference paves the way for additional refcounting
>   improvements that would be extremely difficult to implement when using
>   the custom walker due to cyclical dependencies on the encl_mm's refcount.

No need to change the commit message. Was just a question. I got the
code change :-) Thanks anyway for elaborating.

>  
> > > -	if (!encl)
> > > -		return;
> > > +	lockdep_assert_held_exclusive(&mm->mmap_sem);
> > 
> > Just a question: what does it check (12:10AM too tired to check,
> > apologies)?
> 
> Asserts that the caller has done down_write(&mmap_sem), i.e. guarantees
> that sgx_encl_mm_add() cannot be called in parallel on the same mm_struct.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH for_v21 0/2] x86/sgx: Use SRCU and mmu_notifier
  2019-07-11 21:51 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
@ 2019-07-12  4:17   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jarkko Sakkinen @ 2019-07-12  4:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Sean Christopherson; +Cc: linux-sgx

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 12:51:38AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 09:16:23AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Add SRCU support in a standalone patch.  I included the mmu_notifier patch
> > as well so that you can compare approaches without having to wait on me
> > for additional input.
> 
> Can you rebase these to the latest master. I'll apply them once
> I wake up (about 1AM now). Could just work around with raw patch
> would need to get sleep first anyway. Thanks.

No need, woke up early. I can do these manually with patch -p1.

Thnaks.

/Jarkko

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

end of thread, back to index

Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-07-11 16:16 [PATCH for_v21 0/2] x86/sgx: Use SRCU and mmu_notifier Sean Christopherson
2019-07-11 16:16 ` [PATCH for_v21 1/2] x86/sgx: Use SRCU to protect mm_list during reclaim Sean Christopherson
2019-07-11 21:13   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-07-11 21:25     ` Sean Christopherson
2019-07-12  3:44       ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-07-11 16:16 ` [PATCH for_v21 2/2] x86/sgx: Use mmu_notifier.release() instead of per-vma refcounting Sean Christopherson
2019-07-11 21:16   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-07-11 18:01 ` [PATCH for_v21 0/2] x86/sgx: Use SRCU and mmu_notifier Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-07-11 21:51 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-07-12  4:17   ` Jarkko Sakkinen

Linux-Sgx Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-sgx/0 linux-sgx/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-sgx linux-sgx/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-sgx \
		linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org linux-sgx@archiver.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index linux-sgx


Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-sgx


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox