From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>,
Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com>,
Ulrich Weigand <Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH resend RFC 0/9] s390: fixes, cleanups and optimizations for page table walkers
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 20:06:17 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <858a5f3b-99c0-6da3-6a60-8d01886399c6@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210914185033.367020b3@p-imbrenda>
On 14.09.21 18:50, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 18:22:39 +0200
> David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Resend because I missed ccing people on the actual patches ...
>>
>> RFC because the patches are essentially untested and I did not actually
>> try to trigger any of the things these patches are supposed to fix. It
>
> this is an interesting series, and the code makes sense, but I would
> really like to see some regression tests, and maybe even some
> selftests to trigger (at least some of) the issues.
Yep, it most certainly needs regression testing before picking any of
this. selftests would be great, but I won't find time for it in the
foreseeable future.
>
> the follow-up question is: how did we manage to go on so long without
> noticing these issues? :D
Excellent question - I guess we simply weren't aware of the dos and
don'ts when dealing with process page tables :)
>
>> merely matches my current understanding (and what other code does :) ). I
>> did compile-test as far as possible.
>>
>> After learning more about the wonderful world of page tables and their
>> interaction with the mmap_sem and VMAs, I spotted some issues in our
>> page table walkers that allow user space to trigger nasty behavior when
>> playing dirty tricks with munmap() or mmap() of hugetlb. While some issues
>> should be hard to trigger, others are fairly easy because we provide
>> conventient interfaces (e.g., KVM_S390_GET_SKEYS and KVM_S390_SET_SKEYS).
>>
>> Future work:
>> - Don't use get_locked_pte() when it's not required to actually allocate
>> page tables -- similar to how storage keys are now handled. Examples are
>> get_pgste() and __gmap_zap.
>> - Don't use get_locked_pte() and instead let page fault logic allocate page
>> tables when we actually do need page tables -- also, similar to how
>> storage keys are now handled. Examples are set_pgste_bits() and
>> pgste_perform_essa().
>> - Maybe switch to mm/pagewalk.c to avoid custom page table walkers. For
>> __gmap_zap() that's very easy.
>>
>> Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
>> Cc: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
>> Cc: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>
>> Cc: Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>
>> Cc: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
>> Cc: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>
>> Cc: Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com>
>> Cc: Ulrich Weigand <Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com>
>>
>> David Hildenbrand (9):
>> s390/gmap: validate VMA in __gmap_zap()
>> s390/gmap: don't unconditionally call pte_unmap_unlock() in
>> __gmap_zap()
>> s390/mm: validate VMA in PGSTE manipulation functions
>> s390/mm: fix VMA and page table handling code in storage key handling
>> functions
>> s390/uv: fully validate the VMA before calling follow_page()
>> s390/pci_mmio: fully validate the VMA before calling follow_pte()
>> s390/mm: no need for pte_alloc_map_lock() if we know the pmd is
>> present
>> s390/mm: optimize set_guest_storage_key()
>> s390/mm: optimize reset_guest_reference_bit()
>>
>> arch/s390/kernel/uv.c | 2 +-
>> arch/s390/mm/gmap.c | 11 +++-
>> arch/s390/mm/pgtable.c | 109 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>> arch/s390/pci/pci_mmio.c | 4 +-
>> 4 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
>>
>>
>> base-commit: 7d2a07b769330c34b4deabeed939325c77a7ec2f
>
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-14 18:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-09 16:22 [PATCH resend RFC 0/9] s390: fixes, cleanups and optimizations for page table walkers David Hildenbrand
2021-09-09 16:22 ` [PATCH resend RFC 1/9] s390/gmap: validate VMA in __gmap_zap() David Hildenbrand
2021-09-14 16:53 ` Claudio Imbrenda
2021-09-09 16:22 ` [PATCH resend RFC 2/9] s390/gmap: don't unconditionally call pte_unmap_unlock() " David Hildenbrand
2021-09-14 16:52 ` Claudio Imbrenda
2021-09-09 16:22 ` [PATCH resend RFC 3/9] s390/mm: validate VMA in PGSTE manipulation functions David Hildenbrand
2021-09-14 16:54 ` Claudio Imbrenda
2021-09-09 16:22 ` [PATCH resend RFC 4/9] s390/mm: fix VMA and page table handling code in storage key handling functions David Hildenbrand
2021-09-27 16:37 ` Claudio Imbrenda
2021-09-09 16:22 ` [PATCH resend RFC 5/9] s390/uv: fully validate the VMA before calling follow_page() David Hildenbrand
2021-09-14 16:53 ` Claudio Imbrenda
2021-09-14 22:41 ` Liam Howlett
2021-09-09 16:22 ` [PATCH resend RFC 6/9] s390/pci_mmio: fully validate the VMA before calling follow_pte() David Hildenbrand
2021-09-14 16:54 ` Claudio Imbrenda
2021-09-14 22:41 ` Liam Howlett
2021-09-09 16:22 ` [PATCH resend RFC 7/9] s390/mm: no need for pte_alloc_map_lock() if we know the pmd is present David Hildenbrand
2021-09-14 16:54 ` Claudio Imbrenda
2021-09-14 17:23 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-09-09 16:22 ` [PATCH resend RFC 8/9] s390/mm: optimize set_guest_storage_key() David Hildenbrand
2021-09-27 17:01 ` Claudio Imbrenda
2021-09-09 16:22 ` [PATCH resend RFC 9/9] s390/mm: optimize reset_guest_reference_bit() David Hildenbrand
2021-09-27 17:02 ` Claudio Imbrenda
2021-09-14 16:50 ` [PATCH resend RFC 0/9] s390: fixes, cleanups and optimizations for page table walkers Claudio Imbrenda
2021-09-14 18:06 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2021-09-28 10:59 ` Heiko Carstens
2021-09-28 11:06 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-28 14:38 ` Claudio Imbrenda
2021-09-28 16:03 ` Christian Borntraeger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=858a5f3b-99c0-6da3-6a60-8d01886399c6@redhat.com \
--to=david@redhat.com \
--cc=Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=frankja@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=imbrenda@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=schnelle@linux.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).