s390: fixes, cleanups and optimizations for page table walkers
Subsystems (6)
cover s390: fixes, cleanups and optimizations for page table walkers
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 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.
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
Signature · 1 line
2.31.1
RFC PATCH 1/9 s390/gmap: validate VMA in __gmap_zap()
We should not walk/touch page tables outside of VMA boundaries when holding only the mmap sem in read mode. Evil user space can modify the VMA layout just before this function runs and e.g., trigger races with page table removal code since commit dd2283f2605e ("mm: mmap: zap pages with read mmap_sem in munmap"). The pure prescence in our guest_to_host radix tree does not imply that there is a VMA.
Further, we should not allocate page tables (via get_locked_pte()) outside of VMA boundaries: if evil user space decides to map hugetlbfs to these ranges, bad things will happen because we suddenly have PTE or PMD page tables where we shouldn't have them.
Similarly, we have to check if we suddenly find a hugetlbfs VMA, before calling get_locked_pte().
Note that gmap_discard() is different:
zap_page_range()->unmap_single_vma() makes sure to stay within VMA boundaries.
--- arch/s390/mm/gmap.c | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
arch/s390/mm/gmap.c +6 -0
@@ -673,6 +673,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(gmap_fault);*/ void __gmap_zap (struct gmap *gmap,unsigned long gaddr) { +struct vm_area_struct *vma;unsigned long vmaddr;spinlock_t *ptl;pte_t *ptep;
@@ -682,6 +683,11 @@ void __gmap_zap(struct gmap *gmap, unsigned long gaddr) gaddr >> PMD_SHIFT);if (vmaddr) { vmaddr |= gaddr & ~PMD_MASK ; + + vma =vma_lookup (gmap->mm, vmaddr); +if (!vma ||is_vm_hugetlb_page (vma)) +return ; +/* Get pointer to the page table entry */ ptep =get_locked_pte (gmap->mm, vmaddr, &ptl);if (likely (ptep))
Signature · 1 line
2.31.1
Re: [PATCH resend RFC 1/9] s390/gmap: validate VMA in __gmap_zap()
Quoted 15 lines · On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 18:22:40 +0200 David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:
We should not walk/touch page tables outside of VMA boundaries when holding only the mmap sem in read mode. Evil user space can modify the VMA layout just before this function runs and e.g., trigger races with page table removal code since commit
dd2283f2605e("mm: mmap: zap pages with readmmap_semin munmap"). The pure prescence in ourguest_to_hostradix tree does not imply that there is a VMA.Further, we should not allocate page tables (via
get_locked_pte()) outside of VMA boundaries: if evil user space decides to map hugetlbfs to these ranges, bad things will happen because we suddenly have PTE or PMD page tables where we shouldn't have them.Similarly, we have to check if we suddenly find a hugetlbfs VMA, before calling
get_locked_pte().
Quoted 6 lines
Note that
gmap_discard()is different:
zap_page_range()->unmap_single_vma() makes sure to stay within VMA boundaries.Fixes b31288fa83b2 ("s390/kvm: support collaborative memory management")Signed-off-by David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>
Quoted 28 lines
--- arch/s390/mm/gmap.c | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)arch/s390/mm/gmap.c +6
-0@@ -673,6 +673,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(gmap_fault);*/ void __gmap_zap (struct gmap *gmap,unsigned long gaddr) { +struct vm_area_struct *vma;unsigned long vmaddr;spinlock_t *ptl;pte_t *ptep;@@ -682,6 +683,11 @@ void __gmap_zap(struct gmap *gmap, unsigned long gaddr) gaddr >> PMD_SHIFT);if (vmaddr) { vmaddr |= gaddr & ~PMD_MASK ; + + vma =vma_lookup (gmap->mm, vmaddr); +if (!vma ||is_vm_hugetlb_page (vma)) +return ; +/* Get pointer to the page table entry */ ptep =get_locked_pte (gmap->mm, vmaddr, &ptl);if (likely (ptep))
RFC PATCH 2/9 s390/gmap: don't unconditionally call pte_unmap_unlock() in __gmap_zap()
In reply to David Hildenbrand... otherwise we will try unlocking a spinlock that was never locked via a garbage pointer.
At the time we reach this code path, we usually successfully looked up a PGSTE already; however, evil user space could have manipulated the VMA layout in the meantime and triggered removal of the page table.
--- arch/s390/mm/gmap.c | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
arch/s390/mm/gmap.c +3 -2
@@ -690,9 +690,10 @@ void __gmap_zap(struct gmap *gmap, unsigned long gaddr)/* Get pointer to the page table entry */ ptep =get_locked_pte (gmap->mm, vmaddr, &ptl); -if (likely (ptep)) +if (likely (ptep)) {ptep_zap_unused (gmap->mm, vmaddr, ptep,0 ); -pte_unmap_unlock (ptep, ptl); +pte_unmap_unlock (ptep, ptl); + } } }EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL (__gmap_zap);
Signature · 1 line
2.31.1
Re: [PATCH resend RFC 2/9] s390/gmap: don't unconditionally call pte_unmap_unlock() in __gmap_zap()
Quoted 9 lines · On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 18:22:41 +0200 David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:
... otherwise we will try unlocking a spinlock that was never locked via a garbage pointer.
At the time we reach this code path, we usually successfully looked up a PGSTE already; however, evil user space could have manipulated the VMA layout in the meantime and triggered removal of the page table.
Fixes 1e133ab296f3 ("s390/mm: split arch/s390/mm/pgtable.c")Signed-off-by David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>
Quoted 21 lines
--- arch/s390/mm/gmap.c | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)arch/s390/mm/gmap.c +3
-2@@ -690,9 +690,10 @@ void __gmap_zap(struct gmap *gmap, unsigned long gaddr)/* Get pointer to the page table entry */ ptep =get_locked_pte (gmap->mm, vmaddr, &ptl); -if (likely (ptep)) +if (likely (ptep)) {ptep_zap_unused (gmap->mm, vmaddr, ptep,0 ); -pte_unmap_unlock (ptep, ptl); +pte_unmap_unlock (ptep, ptl); + } } }EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL (__gmap_zap);
RFC PATCH 3/9 s390/mm: validate VMA in PGSTE manipulation functions
In reply to David HildenbrandWe should not walk/touch page tables outside of VMA boundaries when holding only the mmap sem in read mode. Evil user space can modify the VMA layout just before this function runs and e.g., trigger races with page table removal code since commit dd2283f2605e ("mm: mmap: zap pages with read mmap_sem in munmap"). gfn_to_hva() will only translate using KVM memory regions, but won't validate the VMA.
Further, we should not allocate page tables outside of VMA boundaries: if evil user space decides to map hugetlbfs to these ranges, bad things will happen because we suddenly have PTE or PMD page tables where we shouldn't have them.
Similarly, we have to check if we suddenly find a hugetlbfs VMA, before calling get_locked_pte().
--- arch/s390/mm/pgtable.c | 13 +++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
arch/s390/mm/pgtable.c +13 -0
@@ -988,6 +988,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(get_guest_storage_key);int pgste_perform_essa (struct mm_struct *mm,unsigned long hva,int orc,unsigned long *oldpte,unsigned long *oldpgste) { +struct vm_area_struct *vma;unsigned long pgstev;spinlock_t *ptl;pgste_t pgste;
@@ -997,6 +998,10 @@ int pgste_perform_essa(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long hva, int orc,WARN_ON_ONCE (orc >ESSA_MAX );if (unlikely (orc >ESSA_MAX ))return -EINVAL ; + + vma =vma_lookup (mm, hva); +if (!vma ||is_vm_hugetlb_page (vma)) +return -EFAULT ; ptep =get_locked_pte (mm, hva, &ptl);if (unlikely (!ptep))return -EFAULT ;
@@ -1089,10 +1094,14 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(pgste_perform_essa);int set_pgste_bits (struct mm_struct *mm,unsigned long hva,unsigned long bits,unsigned long value) { +struct vm_area_struct *vma;spinlock_t *ptl;pgste_t new;pte_t *ptep; + vma =vma_lookup (mm, hva); +if (!vma ||is_vm_hugetlb_page (vma)) +return -EFAULT ; ptep =get_locked_pte (mm, hva, &ptl);if (unlikely (!ptep))return -EFAULT ;
@@ -1117,9 +1126,13 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(set_pgste_bits);*/ int get_pgste (struct mm_struct *mm,unsigned long hva,unsigned long *pgstep) { +struct vm_area_struct *vma;spinlock_t *ptl;pte_t *ptep; + vma =vma_lookup (mm, hva); +if (!vma ||is_vm_hugetlb_page (vma)) +return -EFAULT ; ptep =get_locked_pte (mm, hva, &ptl);if (unlikely (!ptep))return -EFAULT ;
Signature · 1 line
2.31.1
Re: [PATCH resend RFC 3/9] s390/mm: validate VMA in PGSTE manipulation functions
Quoted 12 lines · On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 18:22:42 +0200 David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:
We should not walk/touch page tables outside of VMA boundaries when holding only the mmap sem in read mode. Evil user space can modify the VMA layout just before this function runs and e.g., trigger races with page table removal code since commit
dd2283f2605e("mm: mmap: zap pages with readmmap_semin munmap").gfn_to_hva()will only translate using KVM memory regions, but won't validate the VMA.Further, we should not allocate page tables outside of VMA boundaries: if evil user space decides to map hugetlbfs to these ranges, bad things will happen because we suddenly have PTE or PMD page tables where we shouldn't have them.
Quoted 5 lines
Similarly, we have to check if we suddenly find a hugetlbfs VMA, before calling
get_locked_pte().Fixes 2d42f9477320 ("s390/kvm: Add PGSTE manipulation functions")Signed-off-by David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>
Quoted 56 lines
--- arch/s390/mm/pgtable.c | 13 +++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)arch/s390/mm/pgtable.c +13
-0@@ -988,6 +988,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(get_guest_storage_key);int pgste_perform_essa (struct mm_struct *mm,unsigned long hva,int orc,unsigned long *oldpte,unsigned long *oldpgste) { +struct vm_area_struct *vma;unsigned long pgstev;spinlock_t *ptl;pgste_t pgste;@@ -997,6 +998,10 @@ int pgste_perform_essa(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long hva, int orc,WARN_ON_ONCE (orc >ESSA_MAX );if (unlikely (orc >ESSA_MAX ))return -EINVAL ; + + vma =vma_lookup (mm, hva); +if (!vma ||is_vm_hugetlb_page (vma)) +return -EFAULT ; ptep =get_locked_pte (mm, hva, &ptl);if (unlikely (!ptep))return -EFAULT ;@@ -1089,10 +1094,14 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(pgste_perform_essa);int set_pgste_bits (struct mm_struct *mm,unsigned long hva,unsigned long bits,unsigned long value) { +struct vm_area_struct *vma;spinlock_t *ptl;pgste_t new;pte_t *ptep; + vma =vma_lookup (mm, hva); +if (!vma ||is_vm_hugetlb_page (vma)) +return -EFAULT ; ptep =get_locked_pte (mm, hva, &ptl);if (unlikely (!ptep))return -EFAULT ;@@ -1117,9 +1126,13 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(set_pgste_bits);*/ int get_pgste (struct mm_struct *mm,unsigned long hva,unsigned long *pgstep) { +struct vm_area_struct *vma;spinlock_t *ptl;pte_t *ptep; + vma =vma_lookup (mm, hva); +if (!vma ||is_vm_hugetlb_page (vma)) +return -EFAULT ; ptep =get_locked_pte (mm, hva, &ptl);if (unlikely (!ptep))return -EFAULT ;
RFC PATCH 4/9 s390/mm: fix VMA and page table handling code in storage key handling functions
In reply to David HildenbrandThere are multiple things broken about our storage key handling functions:
1. We should not walk/touch page tables outside of VMA boundaries when holding only the mmap sem in read mode. Evil user space can modify the VMA layout just before this function runs and e.g., trigger races with page table removal code since commit dd2283f2605e ("mm: mmap: zap pages with read mmap_sem in munmap"). gfn_to_hva() will only translate using KVM memory regions, but won't validate the VMA.
2. We should not allocate page tables outside of VMA boundaries: if evil user space decides to map hugetlbfs to these ranges, bad things will happen because we suddenly have PTE or PMD page tables where we shouldn't have them.
3. We don't handle large PUDs that might suddenly appeared inside our page table hierarchy.
Don't manually allocate page tables, properly validate that we have VMA and bail out on pud_large().
All callers of page table handling functions, except get_guest_storage_key(), call fixup_user_fault() in case they receive an -EFAULT and retry; this will allocate the necessary page tables if required.
To keep get_guest_storage_key() working as expected and not requiring kvm_s390_get_skeys() to call fixup_user_fault() distinguish between "there is simply no page table or huge page yet and the key is assumed to be 0" and "this is a fault to be reported".
Although commit 637ff9efe5ea ("s390/mm: Add huge pmd storage key handling") introduced most of the affected code, it was actually already broken before when using get_locked_pte() without any VMA checks.
Note: Ever since commit 637ff9efe5ea ("s390/mm: Add huge pmd storage key handling") we can no longer set a guest storage key (for example from QEMU during VM live migration) without actually resolving a fault. Although we would have created most page tables, we would choke on the !pmd_present(), requiring a call to fixup_user_fault(). I would have thought that this is problematic in combination with postcopy life migration ... but nobody noticed and this patch doesn't change the situation. So maybe it's just fine.
--- arch/s390/mm/pgtable.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
arch/s390/mm/pgtable.c +39 -18
@@ -429,22 +429,36 @@ static inline pmd_t pmdp_flush_lazy(struct mm_struct *mm, }#ifdef CONFIG_PGSTE -static pmd_t *pmd_alloc_map (struct mm_struct *mm,unsigned long addr) +static int pmd_lookup (struct mm_struct *mm,unsigned long addr,pmd_t **pmdp) { +struct vm_area_struct *vma;pgd_t *pgd;p4d_t *p4d;pud_t *pud; -pmd_t *pmd; + +/* We need a valid VMA, otherwise this is clearly a fault. */ + vma =vma_lookup (mm, addr); +if (!vma) +return -EFAULT ; pgd =pgd_offset (mm, addr); - p4d =p4d_alloc (mm, pgd, addr); -if (!p4d) -return NULL ; - pud =pud_alloc (mm, p4d, addr); -if (!pud) -return NULL ; - pmd =pmd_alloc (mm, pud, addr); -return pmd; +if (!pgd_present (*pgd)) +return -ENOENT ; + + p4d =p4d_offset (pgd, addr); +if (!p4d_present (*p4d)) +return -ENOENT ; + + pud =pud_offset (p4d, addr); +if (!pud_present (*pud)) +return -ENOENT ; + +/* Large PUDs are not supported yet. */ +if (pud_large (*pud)) +return -EFAULT ; + + *pmdp =pmd_offset (pud, addr); +return 0 ; }#endif
@@ -778,8 +792,7 @@ int set_guest_storage_key(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,pmd_t *pmdp;pte_t *ptep; - pmdp =pmd_alloc_map (mm, addr); -if (unlikely (!pmdp)) +if (pmd_lookup (mm, addr, &pmdp))return -EFAULT ; ptl =pmd_lock (mm, pmdp);
@@ -881,8 +894,7 @@ int reset_guest_reference_bit(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr)pte_t *ptep;int cc =0 ; - pmdp =pmd_alloc_map (mm, addr); -if (unlikely (!pmdp)) +if (pmd_lookup (mm, addr, &pmdp))return -EFAULT ; ptl =pmd_lock (mm, pmdp);
@@ -935,15 +947,24 @@ int get_guest_storage_key(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,pmd_t *pmdp;pte_t *ptep; - pmdp =pmd_alloc_map (mm, addr); -if (unlikely (!pmdp)) +/* +* If we don't have a PTE table and if there is no huge page mapped, +* the storage key is 0. +*/ + *key =0 ; + +switch (pmd_lookup (mm, addr, &pmdp)) { +case -ENOENT : +return 0 ; +case 0 : +break ; +default :return -EFAULT ; + } ptl =pmd_lock (mm, pmdp);if (!pmd_present (*pmdp)) { -/* Not yet mapped memory has a zero key */ spin_unlock (ptl); - *key =0 ;return 0 ; }
Signature · 1 line
2.31.1
Re: [PATCH resend RFC 4/9] s390/mm: fix VMA and page table handling code in storage key handling functions
Quoted 44 lines · On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 18:22:43 +0200 David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:
There are multiple things broken about our storage key handling functions:
1. We should not walk/touch page tables outside of VMA boundaries when holding only the mmap sem in read mode. Evil user space can modify the VMA layout just before this function runs and e.g., trigger races with page table removal code since commit
dd2283f2605e("mm: mmap: zap pages with readmmap_semin munmap").gfn_to_hva()will only translate using KVM memory regions, but won't validate the VMA.2. We should not allocate page tables outside of VMA boundaries: if evil user space decides to map hugetlbfs to these ranges, bad things will happen because we suddenly have PTE or PMD page tables where we shouldn't have them.
3. We don't handle large PUDs that might suddenly appeared inside our page table hierarchy.
Don't manually allocate page tables, properly validate that we have VMA and bail out on
pud_large().All callers of page table handling functions, except
get_guest_storage_key(), callfixup_user_fault()in case they receive an-EFAULTand retry; this will allocate the necessary page tables if required.To keep
get_guest_storage_key()working as expected and not requiringkvm_s390_get_skeys()to callfixup_user_fault()distinguish between "there is simply no page table or huge page yet and the key is assumed to be 0" and "this is a fault to be reported".Although commit
637ff9efe5ea("s390/mm: Add huge pmd storage key handling") introduced most of the affected code, it was actually already broken before when usingget_locked_pte()without any VMA checks.Note: Ever since commit
637ff9efe5ea("s390/mm: Add huge pmd storage key handling") we can no longer set a guest storage key (for example from QEMU during VM live migration) without actually resolving a fault. Although we would have created most page tables, we would choke on the !pmd_present(), requiring a call tofixup_user_fault(). I would have thought that this is problematic in combination with postcopy life migration ... but nobody noticed and this patch doesn't change the situation. So maybe it's just fine.
Quoted 4 lines
Fixes 9fcf93b5de06 ("KVM: S390: Create helper function get_guest_storage_key")Fixes 24d5dd0208ed ("s390/kvm: Provide function for setting the guest storage key")Fixes a7e19ab55ffd ("KVM: s390: handle missing storage-key facility")Signed-off-by David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>
Quoted 104 lines
--- arch/s390/mm/pgtable.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)arch/s390/mm/pgtable.c +39
-18@@ -429,22 +429,36 @@ static inline pmd_t pmdp_flush_lazy(struct mm_struct *mm, }#ifdef CONFIG_PGSTE -static pmd_t *pmd_alloc_map (struct mm_struct *mm,unsigned long addr) +static int pmd_lookup (struct mm_struct *mm,unsigned long addr,pmd_t **pmdp) { +struct vm_area_struct *vma;pgd_t *pgd;p4d_t *p4d;pud_t *pud; -pmd_t *pmd; + +/* We need a valid VMA, otherwise this is clearly a fault. */ + vma =vma_lookup (mm, addr); +if (!vma) +return -EFAULT ; pgd =pgd_offset (mm, addr); - p4d =p4d_alloc (mm, pgd, addr); -if (!p4d) -return NULL ; - pud =pud_alloc (mm, p4d, addr); -if (!pud) -return NULL ; - pmd =pmd_alloc (mm, pud, addr); -return pmd; +if (!pgd_present (*pgd)) +return -ENOENT ; + + p4d =p4d_offset (pgd, addr); +if (!p4d_present (*p4d)) +return -ENOENT ; + + pud =pud_offset (p4d, addr); +if (!pud_present (*pud)) +return -ENOENT ; + +/* Large PUDs are not supported yet. */ +if (pud_large (*pud)) +return -EFAULT ; + + *pmdp =pmd_offset (pud, addr); +return 0 ; }#endif @@ -778,8 +792,7 @@ int set_guest_storage_key(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,pmd_t *pmdp;pte_t *ptep; - pmdp =pmd_alloc_map (mm, addr); -if (unlikely (!pmdp)) +if (pmd_lookup (mm, addr, &pmdp))return -EFAULT ; ptl =pmd_lock (mm, pmdp);@@ -881,8 +894,7 @@ int reset_guest_reference_bit(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr)pte_t *ptep;int cc =0 ; - pmdp =pmd_alloc_map (mm, addr); -if (unlikely (!pmdp)) +if (pmd_lookup (mm, addr, &pmdp))return -EFAULT ; ptl =pmd_lock (mm, pmdp);@@ -935,15 +947,24 @@ int get_guest_storage_key(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,pmd_t *pmdp;pte_t *ptep; - pmdp =pmd_alloc_map (mm, addr); -if (unlikely (!pmdp)) +/* +* If we don't have a PTE table and if there is no huge page mapped, +* the storage key is 0. +*/ + *key =0 ; + +switch (pmd_lookup (mm, addr, &pmdp)) { +case -ENOENT : +return 0 ; +case 0 : +break ; +default :return -EFAULT ; + } ptl =pmd_lock (mm, pmdp);if (!pmd_present (*pmdp)) { -/* Not yet mapped memory has a zero key */ spin_unlock (ptl); - *key =0 ;return 0 ; }
RFC PATCH 5/9 s390/uv: fully validate the VMA before calling follow_page()
In reply to David HildenbrandWe should not walk/touch page tables outside of VMA boundaries when holding only the mmap sem in read mode. Evil user space can modify the VMA layout just before this function runs and e.g., trigger races with page table removal code since commit dd2283f2605e ("mm: mmap: zap pages with read mmap_sem in munmap").
find_vma() does not check if the address is >= the VMA start address; use vma_lookup() instead.
--- arch/s390/kernel/uv.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
arch/s390/kernel/uv.c +1 -1
@@ -227,7 +227,7 @@ int gmap_make_secure(struct gmap *gmap, unsigned long gaddr, void *uvcb) uaddr =__gmap_translate (gmap, gaddr);if (IS_ERR_VALUE (uaddr)) goto out; - vma =find_vma (gmap->mm, uaddr); + vma =vma_lookup (gmap->mm, uaddr);if (!vma) goto out;/*
Signature · 1 line
2.31.1
Re: [PATCH resend RFC 5/9] s390/uv: fully validate the VMA before calling follow_page()
Quoted 11 lines · On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 18:22:44 +0200 David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:
We should not walk/touch page tables outside of VMA boundaries when holding only the mmap sem in read mode. Evil user space can modify the VMA layout just before this function runs and e.g., trigger races with page table removal code since commit
dd2283f2605e("mm: mmap: zap pages with readmmap_semin munmap").
find_vma()does not check if the address is >= the VMA start address; usevma_lookup()instead.Fixes 214d9bbcd3a6 ("s390/mm: provide memory management functions for protected KVM guests")Signed-off-by David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>
Quoted 17 lines
--- arch/s390/kernel/uv.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)arch/s390/kernel/uv.c +1
-1@@ -227,7 +227,7 @@ int gmap_make_secure(struct gmap *gmap, unsigned long gaddr, void *uvcb) uaddr =__gmap_translate (gmap, gaddr);if (IS_ERR_VALUE (uaddr)) goto out; - vma =find_vma (gmap->mm, uaddr); + vma =vma_lookup (gmap->mm, uaddr);if (!vma) goto out;/*
Re: [PATCH resend RFC 5/9] s390/uv: fully validate the VMA before calling follow_page()
In reply to David HildenbrandQuoted 32 lines · David Hildenbrand
We should not walk/touch page tables outside of VMA boundaries when holding only the mmap sem in read mode. Evil user space can modify the VMA layout just before this function runs and e.g., trigger races with page table removal code since commit
dd2283f2605e("mm: mmap: zap pages with readmmap_semin munmap").
find_vma()does not check if the address is >= the VMA start address; usevma_lookup()instead.Fixes 214d9bbcd3a6 ("s390/mm: provide memory management functions for protected KVM guests")Signed-off-by David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>--- arch/s390/kernel/uv.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)arch/s390/kernel/uv.c +1
-1@@ -227,7 +227,7 @@ int gmap_make_secure(struct gmap *gmap, unsigned long gaddr, void *uvcb) uaddr =__gmap_translate (gmap, gaddr);if (IS_ERR_VALUE (uaddr)) goto out; - vma =find_vma (gmap->mm, uaddr); + vma =vma_lookup (gmap->mm, uaddr);if (!vma) goto out;/* Signature · 1 line
2.31.1
RFC PATCH 6/9 s390/pci_mmio: fully validate the VMA before calling follow_pte()
In reply to David HildenbrandWe should not walk/touch page tables outside of VMA boundaries when holding only the mmap sem in read mode. Evil user space can modify the VMA layout just before this function runs and e.g., trigger races with page table removal code since commit dd2283f2605e ("mm: mmap: zap pages with read mmap_sem in munmap").
find_vma() does not check if the address is >= the VMA start address; use vma_lookup() instead.
--- arch/s390/pci/pci_mmio.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
arch/s390/pci/pci_mmio.c +2 -2
@@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(s390_pci_mmio_write, unsigned long, mmio_addr,mmap_read_lock (current->mm); ret = -EINVAL ; - vma =find_vma (current->mm, mmio_addr); + vma =vma_lookup (current->mm, mmio_addr);if (!vma) goto out_unlock_mmap;if (!(vma->vm_flags & (VM_IO |VM_PFNMAP )))
@@ -298,7 +298,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(s390_pci_mmio_read, unsigned long, mmio_addr,mmap_read_lock (current->mm); ret = -EINVAL ; - vma =find_vma (current->mm, mmio_addr); + vma =vma_lookup (current->mm, mmio_addr);if (!vma) goto out_unlock_mmap;if (!(vma->vm_flags & (VM_IO |VM_PFNMAP )))
Signature · 1 line
2.31.1
Re: [PATCH resend RFC 6/9] s390/pci_mmio: fully validate the VMA before calling follow_pte()
Quoted 11 lines · On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 18:22:45 +0200 David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:
We should not walk/touch page tables outside of VMA boundaries when holding only the mmap sem in read mode. Evil user space can modify the VMA layout just before this function runs and e.g., trigger races with page table removal code since commit
dd2283f2605e("mm: mmap: zap pages with readmmap_semin munmap").
find_vma()does not check if the address is >= the VMA start address; usevma_lookup()instead.Fixes dd2283f2605e ("mm: mmap: zap pages with read mmap_sem in munmap")Signed-off-by David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>
Quoted 26 lines
--- arch/s390/pci/pci_mmio.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)arch/s390/pci/pci_mmio.c +2
-2@@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(s390_pci_mmio_write, unsigned long, mmio_addr, mmap_read_lock(current->mm); ret = -EINVAL ; - vma =find_vma (current->mm, mmio_addr); + vma =vma_lookup (current->mm, mmio_addr);if (!vma) goto out_unlock_mmap;if (!(vma->vm_flags & (VM_IO |VM_PFNMAP )))@@ -298,7 +298,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(s390_pci_mmio_read, unsigned long, mmio_addr, mmap_read_lock(current->mm); ret = -EINVAL ; - vma =find_vma (current->mm, mmio_addr); + vma =vma_lookup (current->mm, mmio_addr);if (!vma) goto out_unlock_mmap;if (!(vma->vm_flags & (VM_IO |VM_PFNMAP )))
Re: [PATCH resend RFC 6/9] s390/pci_mmio: fully validate the VMA before calling follow_pte()
In reply to David HildenbrandQuoted 41 lines · David Hildenbrand
We should not walk/touch page tables outside of VMA boundaries when holding only the mmap sem in read mode. Evil user space can modify the VMA layout just before this function runs and e.g., trigger races with page table removal code since commit
dd2283f2605e("mm: mmap: zap pages with readmmap_semin munmap").
find_vma()does not check if the address is >= the VMA start address; usevma_lookup()instead.Fixes dd2283f2605e ("mm: mmap: zap pages with read mmap_sem in munmap")Signed-off-by David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>--- arch/s390/pci/pci_mmio.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)arch/s390/pci/pci_mmio.c +2
-2@@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(s390_pci_mmio_write, unsigned long, mmio_addr,mmap_read_lock (current->mm); ret = -EINVAL ; - vma =find_vma (current->mm, mmio_addr); + vma =vma_lookup (current->mm, mmio_addr);if (!vma) goto out_unlock_mmap;if (!(vma->vm_flags & (VM_IO |VM_PFNMAP )))@@ -298,7 +298,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(s390_pci_mmio_read, unsigned long, mmio_addr,mmap_read_lock (current->mm); ret = -EINVAL ; - vma =find_vma (current->mm, mmio_addr); + vma =vma_lookup (current->mm, mmio_addr);if (!vma) goto out_unlock_mmap;if (!(vma->vm_flags & (VM_IO |VM_PFNMAP )))Signature · 1 line
2.31.1
RFC PATCH 7/9 s390/mm: no need for pte_alloc_map_lock() if we know the pmd is present
In reply to David Hildenbrandpte_map_lock() is sufficient.
--- arch/s390/mm/pgtable.c | 15 +++------------ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
arch/s390/mm/pgtable.c +3 -12
@@ -814,10 +814,7 @@ int set_guest_storage_key(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, }spin_unlock (ptl); - ptep =pte_alloc_map_lock (mm, pmdp, addr, &ptl); -if (unlikely (!ptep)) -return -EFAULT ; - + ptep =pte_offset_map_lock (mm, pmdp, addr, &ptl); new = old =pgste_get_lock (ptep);pgste_val (new) &= ~(PGSTE_GR_BIT |PGSTE_GC_BIT |PGSTE_ACC_BITS |PGSTE_FP_BIT );
@@ -912,10 +909,7 @@ int reset_guest_reference_bit(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr) }spin_unlock (ptl); - ptep =pte_alloc_map_lock (mm, pmdp, addr, &ptl); -if (unlikely (!ptep)) -return -EFAULT ; - + ptep =pte_offset_map_lock (mm, pmdp, addr, &ptl); new = old =pgste_get_lock (ptep);/* Reset guest reference bit only */ pgste_val (new) &= ~PGSTE_GR_BIT ;
@@ -977,10 +971,7 @@ int get_guest_storage_key(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, }spin_unlock (ptl); - ptep =pte_alloc_map_lock (mm, pmdp, addr, &ptl); -if (unlikely (!ptep)) -return -EFAULT ; - + ptep =pte_offset_map_lock (mm, pmdp, addr, &ptl); pgste =pgste_get_lock (ptep); *key = (pgste_val (pgste) & (PGSTE_ACC_BITS |PGSTE_FP_BIT )) >>56 ; paddr =pte_val (*ptep) &PAGE_MASK ;
Signature · 1 line
2.31.1
Claudio Imbrenda
maintainerRe: [PATCH resend RFC 7/9] s390/mm: no need for pte_alloc_map_lock() if we know the pmd is present
Quoted 1 line · On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 18:22:46 +0200 David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:
pte_map_lock()is sufficient.
Can you explain the difference and why it is enough?
Quoted 46 lines
Signed-off-by David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>--- arch/s390/mm/pgtable.c | 15 +++------------ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)arch/s390/mm/pgtable.c +3
-12@@ -814,10 +814,7 @@ int set_guest_storage_key(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, }spin_unlock (ptl); - ptep =pte_alloc_map_lock (mm, pmdp, addr, &ptl); -if (unlikely (!ptep)) -return -EFAULT ; - + ptep =pte_offset_map_lock (mm, pmdp, addr, &ptl); new = old =pgste_get_lock (ptep);pgste_val (new) &= ~(PGSTE_GR_BIT |PGSTE_GC_BIT |PGSTE_ACC_BITS |PGSTE_FP_BIT );@@ -912,10 +909,7 @@ int reset_guest_reference_bit(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr) }spin_unlock (ptl); - ptep =pte_alloc_map_lock (mm, pmdp, addr, &ptl); -if (unlikely (!ptep)) -return -EFAULT ; - + ptep =pte_offset_map_lock (mm, pmdp, addr, &ptl); new = old =pgste_get_lock (ptep);/* Reset guest reference bit only */ pgste_val (new) &= ~PGSTE_GR_BIT ;@@ -977,10 +971,7 @@ int get_guest_storage_key(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, }spin_unlock (ptl); - ptep =pte_alloc_map_lock (mm, pmdp, addr, &ptl); -if (unlikely (!ptep)) -return -EFAULT ; - + ptep =pte_offset_map_lock (mm, pmdp, addr, &ptl); pgste =pgste_get_lock (ptep); *key = (pgste_val (pgste) & (PGSTE_ACC_BITS |PGSTE_FP_BIT )) >>56 ; paddr =pte_val (*ptep) &PAGE_MASK ;
Re: [PATCH resend RFC 7/9] s390/mm: no need for pte_alloc_map_lock() if we know the pmd is present
Quoted 6 lines · Claudio Imbrenda
Quoted 1 line · On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 18:22:46 +0200 David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:
pte_map_lock()is sufficient.Can you explain the difference and why it is enough?
I didn't repeat the $subject:
"No need for pte_alloc_map_lock() if we know the pmd is present; pte_map_lock() is sufficient, because there isn't anything to allocate."
Quoted 48 lines
Quoted 47 lines
Signed-off-by David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>--- arch/s390/mm/pgtable.c | 15 +++------------ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)arch/s390/mm/pgtable.c +3
-12@@ -814,10 +814,7 @@ int set_guest_storage_key(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, }spin_unlock (ptl); - ptep =pte_alloc_map_lock (mm, pmdp, addr, &ptl); -if (unlikely (!ptep)) -return -EFAULT ; - + ptep =pte_offset_map_lock (mm, pmdp, addr, &ptl); new = old =pgste_get_lock (ptep);pgste_val (new) &= ~(PGSTE_GR_BIT |PGSTE_GC_BIT |PGSTE_ACC_BITS |PGSTE_FP_BIT );@@ -912,10 +909,7 @@ int reset_guest_reference_bit(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr) }spin_unlock (ptl); - ptep =pte_alloc_map_lock (mm, pmdp, addr, &ptl); -if (unlikely (!ptep)) -return -EFAULT ; - + ptep =pte_offset_map_lock (mm, pmdp, addr, &ptl); new = old =pgste_get_lock (ptep);/* Reset guest reference bit only */ pgste_val (new) &= ~PGSTE_GR_BIT ;@@ -977,10 +971,7 @@ int get_guest_storage_key(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, }spin_unlock (ptl); - ptep =pte_alloc_map_lock (mm, pmdp, addr, &ptl); -if (unlikely (!ptep)) -return -EFAULT ; - + ptep =pte_offset_map_lock (mm, pmdp, addr, &ptl); pgste =pgste_get_lock (ptep); *key = (pgste_val (pgste) & (PGSTE_ACC_BITS |PGSTE_FP_BIT )) >>56 ; paddr =pte_val (*ptep) &PAGE_MASK ;
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb
RFC PATCH 8/9 s390/mm: optimize set_guest_storage_key()
In reply to David HildenbrandWe already optimize get_guest_storage_key() to assume that if we don't have a PTE table and don't have a huge page mapped that the storage key is 0.
Similarly, optimize set_guest_storage_key() to simply do nothing in case the key to set is 0.
--- arch/s390/mm/pgtable.c | 14 ++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
arch/s390/mm/pgtable.c +12 -2
@@ -792,13 +792,23 @@ int set_guest_storage_key(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,pmd_t *pmdp;pte_t *ptep; -if (pmd_lookup (mm, addr, &pmdp)) +/* +* If we don't have a PTE table and if there is no huge page mapped, +* we can ignore attempts to set the key to 0, because it already is 0. +*/ +switch (pmd_lookup (mm, addr, &pmdp)) { +case -ENOENT : +return key ? -EFAULT :0 ; +case 0 : +break ; +default :return -EFAULT ; + } ptl =pmd_lock (mm, pmdp);if (!pmd_present (*pmdp)) {spin_unlock (ptl); -return -EFAULT ; +return key ? -EFAULT :0 ; }if (pmd_large (*pmdp)) {
Signature · 1 line
2.31.1
Re: [PATCH resend RFC 8/9] s390/mm: optimize set_guest_storage_key()
Quoted 7 lines · On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 18:22:47 +0200 David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:
We already optimize
get_guest_storage_key()to assume that if we don't have a PTE table and don't have a huge page mapped that the storage key is 0.Similarly, optimize
set_guest_storage_key()to simply do nothing in case the key to set is 0.Signed-off-by David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>
Quoted 34 lines
--- arch/s390/mm/pgtable.c | 14 ++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)arch/s390/mm/pgtable.c +12
-2@@ -792,13 +792,23 @@ int set_guest_storage_key(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,pmd_t *pmdp;pte_t *ptep; -if (pmd_lookup (mm, addr, &pmdp)) +/* +* If we don't have a PTE table and if there is no huge page mapped, +* we can ignore attempts to set the key to 0, because it already is 0. +*/ +switch (pmd_lookup (mm, addr, &pmdp)) { +case -ENOENT : +return key ? -EFAULT :0 ; +case 0 : +break ; +default :return -EFAULT ; + } ptl =pmd_lock (mm, pmdp);if (!pmd_present (*pmdp)) {spin_unlock (ptl); -return -EFAULT ; +return key ? -EFAULT :0 ; }if (pmd_large (*pmdp)) {
RFC PATCH 9/9 s390/mm: optimize reset_guest_reference_bit()
In reply to David HildenbrandWe already optimize get_guest_storage_key() to assume that if we don't have a PTE table and don't have a huge page mapped that the storage key is 0.
Similarly, optimize reset_guest_reference_bit() to simply do nothing if there is no PTE table and no huge page mapped.
--- arch/s390/mm/pgtable.c | 14 ++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
arch/s390/mm/pgtable.c +12 -2
@@ -901,13 +901,23 @@ int reset_guest_reference_bit(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr)pte_t *ptep;int cc =0 ; -if (pmd_lookup (mm, addr, &pmdp)) +/* +* If we don't have a PTE table and if there is no huge page mapped, +* the storage key is 0 and there is nothing for us to do. +*/ +switch (pmd_lookup (mm, addr, &pmdp)) { +case -ENOENT : +return 0 ; +case 0 : +break ; +default :return -EFAULT ; + } ptl =pmd_lock (mm, pmdp);if (!pmd_present (*pmdp)) {spin_unlock (ptl); -return -EFAULT ; +return 0 ; }if (pmd_large (*pmdp)) {
Signature · 1 line
2.31.1
Re: [PATCH resend RFC 9/9] s390/mm: optimize reset_guest_reference_bit()
Quoted 7 lines · On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 18:22:48 +0200 David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:
We already optimize
get_guest_storage_key()to assume that if we don't have a PTE table and don't have a huge page mapped that the storage key is 0.Similarly, optimize
reset_guest_reference_bit()to simply do nothing if there is no PTE table and no huge page mapped.Signed-off-by David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>
Quoted 34 lines
--- arch/s390/mm/pgtable.c | 14 ++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)arch/s390/mm/pgtable.c +12
-2@@ -901,13 +901,23 @@ int reset_guest_reference_bit(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr)pte_t *ptep;int cc =0 ; -if (pmd_lookup (mm, addr, &pmdp)) +/* +* If we don't have a PTE table and if there is no huge page mapped, +* the storage key is 0 and there is nothing for us to do. +*/ +switch (pmd_lookup (mm, addr, &pmdp)) { +case -ENOENT : +return 0 ; +case 0 : +break ; +default :return -EFAULT ; + } ptl =pmd_lock (mm, pmdp);if (!pmd_present (*pmdp)) {spin_unlock (ptl); -return -EFAULT ; +return 0 ; }if (pmd_large (*pmdp)) {
Claudio Imbrenda
maintainerQuoted 4 lines · On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 18:22:39 +0200 David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> 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.
the follow-up question is: how did we manage to go on so long without noticing these issues? :D
Quoted 53 lines
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_semand VMAs, I spotted some issues in our page table walkers that allow user space to trigger nasty behavior when playing dirty tricks withmunmap()ormmap()of hugetlb. While some issues should be hard to trigger, others are fairly easy because we provide conventient interfaces (e.g.,KVM_S390_GET_SKEYSandKVM_S390_SET_SKEYS).Future work:
- Don't useget_locked_pte()when it's not required to actually allocate page tables -- similar to how storage keys are now handled. Examples areget_pgste()and__gmap_zap.
- Don't useget_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 areset_pgste_bits()andpgste_perform_essa().
- Maybe switch tomm/pagewalk.cto avoid custom page table walkers. For__gmap_zap()that's very easy.Cc Christian Borntraeger <[email protected]>Cc Janosch Frank <[email protected]>Cc Cornelia Huck <[email protected]>Cc Claudio Imbrenda <[email protected]>Cc Heiko Carstens <[email protected]>Cc Vasily Gorbik <[email protected]>Cc Niklas Schnelle <[email protected]>Cc Gerald Schaefer <[email protected]>Cc Ulrich Weigand <[email protected]>David Hildenbrand (9):
s390/gmap: validate VMA in__gmap_zap()s390/gmap: don't unconditionally callpte_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 callingfollow_page()s390/pci_mmio: fully validate the VMA before callingfollow_pte()s390/mm: no need forpte_alloc_map_lock()if we know the pmd is
present
s390/mm: optimizeset_guest_storage_key()
s390/mm: optimizereset_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
Quoted 11 lines · Claudio Imbrenda
Quoted 4 lines · On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 18:22:39 +0200 David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> 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.
Quoted 3 lines
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 :)
Quoted 55 lines
Quoted 54 lines
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_semand VMAs, I spotted some issues in our page table walkers that allow user space to trigger nasty behavior when playing dirty tricks withmunmap()ormmap()of hugetlb. While some issues should be hard to trigger, others are fairly easy because we provide conventient interfaces (e.g.,KVM_S390_GET_SKEYSandKVM_S390_SET_SKEYS).Future work:
- Don't useget_locked_pte()when it's not required to actually allocate page tables -- similar to how storage keys are now handled. Examples areget_pgste()and__gmap_zap.
- Don't useget_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 areset_pgste_bits()andpgste_perform_essa().
- Maybe switch tomm/pagewalk.cto avoid custom page table walkers. For__gmap_zap()that's very easy.Cc Christian Borntraeger <[email protected]>Cc Janosch Frank <[email protected]>Cc Cornelia Huck <[email protected]>Cc Claudio Imbrenda <[email protected]>Cc Heiko Carstens <[email protected]>Cc Vasily Gorbik <[email protected]>Cc Niklas Schnelle <[email protected]>Cc Gerald Schaefer <[email protected]>Cc Ulrich Weigand <[email protected]>David Hildenbrand (9):
s390/gmap: validate VMA in__gmap_zap()s390/gmap: don't unconditionally callpte_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 callingfollow_page()s390/pci_mmio: fully validate the VMA before callingfollow_pte()s390/mm: no need forpte_alloc_map_lock()if we know the pmd is
present
s390/mm: optimizeset_guest_storage_key()
s390/mm: optimizereset_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
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb
Quoted 25 lines · David Hildenbrand
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 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_semand VMAs, I spotted some issues in our page table walkers that allow user space to trigger nasty behavior when playing dirty tricks withmunmap()ormmap()of hugetlb. While some issues should be hard to trigger, others are fairly easy because we provide conventient interfaces (e.g.,KVM_S390_GET_SKEYSandKVM_S390_SET_SKEYS).Future work:
- Don't useget_locked_pte()when it's not required to actually allocate page tables -- similar to how storage keys are now handled. Examples areget_pgste()and__gmap_zap.
- Don't useget_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 areset_pgste_bits()andpgste_perform_essa().
- Maybe switch tomm/pagewalk.cto avoid custom page table walkers. For__gmap_zap()that's very easy.
Quoted 9 lines
Cc Christian Borntraeger <[email protected]>Cc Janosch Frank <[email protected]>Cc Cornelia Huck <[email protected]>Cc Claudio Imbrenda <[email protected]>Cc Heiko Carstens <[email protected]>Cc Vasily Gorbik <[email protected]>Cc Niklas Schnelle <[email protected]>Cc Gerald Schaefer <[email protected]>Cc Ulrich Weigand <[email protected]>
For the whole series:
Christian, given that this is mostly about KVM I'd assume this should go via the KVM tree. Patch 6 (pci_mmio) is already upstream.
Am 28.09.21 um 12:59 schrieb Heiko Carstens:
Quoted 36 lines · David Hildenbrand
Quoted 25 lines
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 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_semand VMAs, I spotted some issues in our page table walkers that allow user space to trigger nasty behavior when playing dirty tricks withmunmap()ormmap()of hugetlb. While some issues should be hard to trigger, others are fairly easy because we provide conventient interfaces (e.g.,KVM_S390_GET_SKEYSandKVM_S390_SET_SKEYS).Future work:
- Don't useget_locked_pte()when it's not required to actually allocate page tables -- similar to how storage keys are now handled. Examples areget_pgste()and__gmap_zap.
- Don't useget_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 areset_pgste_bits()andpgste_perform_essa().
- Maybe switch tomm/pagewalk.cto avoid custom page table walkers. For__gmap_zap()that's very easy.Quoted 9 lines
Cc Christian Borntraeger <[email protected]>Cc Janosch Frank <[email protected]>Cc Cornelia Huck <[email protected]>Cc Claudio Imbrenda <[email protected]>Cc Heiko Carstens <[email protected]>Cc Vasily Gorbik <[email protected]>Cc Niklas Schnelle <[email protected]>Cc Gerald Schaefer <[email protected]>Cc Ulrich Weigand <[email protected]>
Quoted 5 lines
For the whole series:
Acked-by Heiko Carstens <[email protected]>Christian, given that this is mostly about KVM I'd assume this should go via the KVM tree. Patch 6 (
pci_mmio) is already upstream.
Right, I think I will queue this even without testing for now. Claudio, is patch 7 ok for you with the explanation from David?
Claudio Imbrenda
maintainerQuoted 37 lines · On Tue, 28 Sep 2021 13:06:26 +0200 Christian Borntraeger…
Am 28.09.21 um 12:59 schrieb Heiko Carstens:
Quoted 36 lines · David Hildenbrand
Quoted 34 lines
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 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_semand VMAs, I spotted some issues in our page table walkers that allow user space to trigger nasty behavior when playing dirty tricks withmunmap()ormmap()of hugetlb. While some issues should be hard to trigger, others are fairly easy because we provide conventient interfaces (e.g.,KVM_S390_GET_SKEYSandKVM_S390_SET_SKEYS).Future work:
- Don't useget_locked_pte()when it's not required to actually allocate page tables -- similar to how storage keys are now handled. Examples areget_pgste()and__gmap_zap.
- Don't useget_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 areset_pgste_bits()andpgste_perform_essa().
- Maybe switch tomm/pagewalk.cto avoid custom page table walkers. For__gmap_zap()that's very easy.Cc Christian Borntraeger <[email protected]>Cc Janosch Frank <[email protected]>Cc Cornelia Huck <[email protected]>Cc Claudio Imbrenda <[email protected]>Cc Heiko Carstens <[email protected]>Cc Vasily Gorbik <[email protected]>Cc Niklas Schnelle <[email protected]>Cc Gerald Schaefer <[email protected]>Cc Ulrich Weigand <[email protected]>
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
For the whole series:
Acked-by Heiko Carstens <[email protected]>Christian, given that this is mostly about KVM I'd assume this should go via the KVM tree. Patch 6 (
pci_mmio) is already upstream.Right, I think I will queue this even without testing for now. Claudio, is patch 7 ok for you with the explanation from David?
yes
Am 09.09.21 um 18:22 schrieb David Hildenbrand:
Quoted 49 lines
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 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_semand VMAs, I spotted some issues in our page table walkers that allow user space to trigger nasty behavior when playing dirty tricks withmunmap()ormmap()of hugetlb. While some issues should be hard to trigger, others are fairly easy because we provide conventient interfaces (e.g.,KVM_S390_GET_SKEYSandKVM_S390_SET_SKEYS).Future work:
- Don't useget_locked_pte()when it's not required to actually allocate page tables -- similar to how storage keys are now handled. Examples areget_pgste()and__gmap_zap.
- Don't useget_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 areset_pgste_bits()andpgste_perform_essa().
- Maybe switch tomm/pagewalk.cto avoid custom page table walkers. For__gmap_zap()that's very easy.Cc Christian Borntraeger <[email protected]>Cc Janosch Frank <[email protected]>Cc Cornelia Huck <[email protected]>Cc Claudio Imbrenda <[email protected]>Cc Heiko Carstens <[email protected]>Cc Vasily Gorbik <[email protected]>Cc Niklas Schnelle <[email protected]>Cc Gerald Schaefer <[email protected]>Cc Ulrich Weigand <[email protected]>David Hildenbrand (9):
s390/gmap: validate VMA in__gmap_zap()s390/gmap: don't unconditionally callpte_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 callingfollow_page()s390/pci_mmio: fully validate the VMA before callingfollow_pte()s390/mm: no need forpte_alloc_map_lock()if we know the pmd is
present
s390/mm: optimizeset_guest_storage_key()
s390/mm: optimizereset_guest_reference_bit()
Quoted 6 lines
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(-)
Thanks applied. Will run some test on those commits, but its already pushed out to my next tree to give it some coverage.
g