Re: Possible use_mm() mis-uses

2018-08-23 Thread Paolo Bonzini
On 23/08/2018 08:07, Zhenyu Wang wrote:
> On 2018.08.22 20:20:46 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 22/08/2018 18:44, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> An example of something that *isn't* right, is the i915 kvm interface,
>>> which does
>>>
>>> use_mm(kvm->mm);
>>>
>>> on an mm that was initialized in virt/kvm/kvm_main.c using
>>>
>>> mmgrab(current->mm);
>>> kvm->mm = current->mm;
>>>
>>> which is *not* right. Using "mmgrab()" does indeed guarantee the
>>> lifetime of the 'struct mm_struct' itself, but it does *not* guarantee
>>> the lifetime of the page tables. You need to use "mmget()" and
>>> "mmput()", which get the reference to the actual process address
>>> space!
>>>
>>> Now, it is *possible* that the kvm use is correct too, because kvm
>>> does register a mmu_notifier chain, and in theory you can avoid the
>>> proper refcounting by just making sure the mmu "release" notifier
>>> kills any existing uses, but I don't really see kvm doing that. Kvm
>>> does register a release notifier, but that just flushes the shadow
>>> page tables, it doesn't kill any use_mm() use by some i915 use case.
>>
>> Yes, KVM is correct but the i915 bits are at least fishy.  It's probably
>> as simple as adding a mmget/mmput pair respectively in kvmgt_guest_init
>> and kvmgt_guest_exit, or maybe mmget_not_zero.
>>
> 
> yeah, that's the clear way to fix this imo. We only depend on guest
> life cycle to access guest memory properly. Here's proposed fix, will
> verify and integrate it later.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> From 5e5a8d0409aa150884adf5a4d0b956fd0b9906b3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Zhenyu Wang 
> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 14:08:06 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Fix life cycle reference on KVM mm
> 
> Handle guest mm access life cycle properly with mmget()/mmput()
> through guest init()/exit(). As noted by Linus, use_mm() depends
> on valid live page table but KVM's mmgrab() doesn't guarantee that.
> As vGPU usage depends on guest VM life cycle, need to make sure to
> use mmget()/mmput() to guarantee VM address access.
> 
> Cc: Linus Torvalds 
> Cc: Paolo Bonzini 
> Cc: Zhi Wang 
> Signed-off-by: Zhenyu Wang 

Reviewed-by: Paolo Bonzini 

> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c | 12 +++-
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c 
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> index 71751be329e3..4a0988747d08 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@
>  #include 
>  #include 
>  #include 
> +#include 
>  #include 
>  #include 
>  #include 
> @@ -1614,9 +1615,16 @@ static int kvmgt_guest_init(struct mdev_device *mdev)
>   if (__kvmgt_vgpu_exist(vgpu, kvm))
>   return -EEXIST;
>  
> + if (!mmget_not_zero(kvm->mm)) {
> + gvt_vgpu_err("Can't get KVM mm reference\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
>   info = vzalloc(sizeof(struct kvmgt_guest_info));
> - if (!info)
> + if (!info) {
> + mmput(kvm->mm);
>   return -ENOMEM;
> + }
>  
>   vgpu->handle = (unsigned long)info;
>   info->vgpu = vgpu;
> @@ -1647,6 +1655,8 @@ static bool kvmgt_guest_exit(struct kvmgt_guest_info 
> *info)
>   debugfs_remove(info->debugfs_cache_entries);
>  
>   kvm_page_track_unregister_notifier(info->kvm, >track_node);
> + if (info->kvm->mm)
> + mmput(info->kvm->mm);
>   kvm_put_kvm(info->kvm);
>   kvmgt_protect_table_destroy(info);
>   gvt_cache_destroy(info->vgpu);
> 




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx


Re: Possible use_mm() mis-uses

2018-08-22 Thread Paolo Bonzini
On 22/08/2018 18:44, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> An example of something that *isn't* right, is the i915 kvm interface,
> which does
> 
> use_mm(kvm->mm);
> 
> on an mm that was initialized in virt/kvm/kvm_main.c using
> 
> mmgrab(current->mm);
> kvm->mm = current->mm;
> 
> which is *not* right. Using "mmgrab()" does indeed guarantee the
> lifetime of the 'struct mm_struct' itself, but it does *not* guarantee
> the lifetime of the page tables. You need to use "mmget()" and
> "mmput()", which get the reference to the actual process address
> space!
> 
> Now, it is *possible* that the kvm use is correct too, because kvm
> does register a mmu_notifier chain, and in theory you can avoid the
> proper refcounting by just making sure the mmu "release" notifier
> kills any existing uses, but I don't really see kvm doing that. Kvm
> does register a release notifier, but that just flushes the shadow
> page tables, it doesn't kill any use_mm() use by some i915 use case.

Yes, KVM is correct but the i915 bits are at least fishy.  It's probably
as simple as adding a mmget/mmput pair respectively in kvmgt_guest_init
and kvmgt_guest_exit, or maybe mmget_not_zero.

Paolo
___
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx