On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 01:44:33PM -0400, Dave Voutila wrote: > Syzbot recently discovered that since we don't have any bounds in place > for number of vms or vcpus it's possible to completely exhuast kernel > memory or at least put the system in a state where malloc(9) or > km_alloc(9) fail in systems (e.g. DRM, unveil, etc.) resulting in > panics. Actually, it first discovered some lock ordering issues, but > once those were fixed this issue surfaced via the reproducer [1]. > > I chose 512 as a conservative bound based on the idea that vcpu's have a > few wired pages of memory each for various VMX/SVM things like VMCS/VMCB > structures. > > Given we also wire guest memory on a page fault and only support 1 vcpu > per guest currently, it's highly unlikely someone is successfully > running 512 guests. Once we finish fixing the tlb issues forcing us to > wire or implement SMP, we can revisit this number. > > I checked with openbsd.amsterdam and this is well over their current > densities. (If anyone *IS* somehow running > 512 guests as of this > moment, please speak up.) > > ok? > > [1] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/text?tag=ReproC&x=11f507de300000 >
ok mlarkin > Index: sys/arch/amd64/amd64/vmm.c > =================================================================== > RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/arch/amd64/amd64/vmm.c,v > retrieving revision 1.292 > diff -u -p -r1.292 vmm.c > --- sys/arch/amd64/amd64/vmm.c 5 Sep 2021 16:36:34 -0000 1.292 > +++ sys/arch/amd64/amd64/vmm.c 11 Sep 2021 17:36:28 -0000 > @@ -99,6 +99,9 @@ struct vmm_softc { > > int mode; > > + size_t vcpu_ct; > + size_t vcpu_max; > + > struct rwlock vm_lock; > size_t vm_ct; /* number of in-memory VMs */ > size_t vm_idx; /* next unique VM index */ > @@ -368,6 +371,8 @@ vmm_attach(struct device *parent, struct > sc->nr_svm_cpus = 0; > sc->nr_rvi_cpus = 0; > sc->nr_ept_cpus = 0; > + sc->vcpu_ct = 0; > + sc->vcpu_max = VMM_MAX_VCPUS; > sc->vm_ct = 0; > sc->vm_idx = 0; > > @@ -1498,6 +1503,15 @@ vm_create(struct vm_create_params *vcp, > if (vcp->vcp_ncpus != 1) > return (EINVAL); > > + rw_enter_write(&vmm_softc->vm_lock); > + if (vmm_softc->vcpu_ct + vcp->vcp_ncpus > vmm_softc->vcpu_max) { > + printf("%s: maximum vcpus (%lu) reached\n", __func__, > + vmm_softc->vcpu_max); > + rw_exit_write(&vmm_softc->vm_lock); > + return (ENOMEM); > + } > + vmm_softc->vcpu_ct += vcp->vcp_ncpus; > + > vm = pool_get(&vm_pool, PR_WAITOK | PR_ZERO); > SLIST_INIT(&vm->vm_vcpu_list); > rw_init(&vm->vm_vcpu_lock, "vcpu_list"); > @@ -1509,8 +1523,6 @@ vm_create(struct vm_create_params *vcp, > vm->vm_memory_size = memsize; > strncpy(vm->vm_name, vcp->vcp_name, VMM_MAX_NAME_LEN - 1); > > - rw_enter_write(&vmm_softc->vm_lock); > - > if (vm_impl_init(vm, p)) { > printf("failed to init arch-specific features for vm %p\n", vm); > vm_teardown(vm); > @@ -3784,6 +3796,7 @@ vm_teardown(struct vm *vm) > SLIST_REMOVE(&vm->vm_vcpu_list, vcpu, vcpu, vc_vcpu_link); > vcpu_deinit(vcpu); > pool_put(&vcpu_pool, vcpu); > + vmm_softc->vcpu_ct--; > } > > vm_impl_deinit(vm); > Index: sys/arch/amd64/include/vmmvar.h > =================================================================== > RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/arch/amd64/include/vmmvar.h,v > retrieving revision 1.73 > diff -u -p -r1.73 vmmvar.h > --- sys/arch/amd64/include/vmmvar.h 31 Aug 2021 17:40:59 -0000 1.73 > +++ sys/arch/amd64/include/vmmvar.h 11 Sep 2021 17:36:28 -0000 > @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ > #define VMM_MAX_PATH_CDROM 128 > #define VMM_MAX_NAME_LEN 64 > #define VMM_MAX_KERNEL_PATH 128 > +#define VMM_MAX_VCPUS 512 > #define VMM_MAX_VCPUS_PER_VM 64 > #define VMM_MAX_VM_MEM_SIZE 32768 > #define VMM_MAX_NICS_PER_VM 4 >