If the mmap_sem is contented then the vfio type1 IOMMU backend will
defer locked page accounting updates to a workqueue task. This has a
few problems and depending on which side the user tries to play, they
might be over-penalized for unmaps that haven't yet been accounted or
race the workqueue to enter more mappings than they're allowed. The
original intent of this workqueue mechanism seems to be focused on
reducing latency through the ioctl, but we cannot do so at the cost
of correctness. Remove this workqueue mechanism and update the
callers to allow for failure. We can also now recheck the limit under
write lock to make sure we don't exceed it.
vfio_pin_pages_remote() also now necessarily includes an unwind path
which we can jump to directly if the consecutive page pinning finds
that we're exceeding the user's memory limits. This avoids the
current lazy approach which does accounting and mapping up to the
fault, only to return an error on the next iteration to unwind the
entire vfio_dma.
Cc: [email protected]
Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <[email protected]>
---
v3: Update for comments from Peter
- Use task_rlimit() exclusively
- Discuss vfio_pin_pages_remote() exit branch in commitlog
drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c | 99 +++++++++++++++++----------------------
1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
index 32d2633092a3..176ebcc0ffa2 100644
--- a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
+++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
@@ -246,69 +246,43 @@ static int vfio_iova_put_vfio_pfn(struct vfio_dma *dma, struct vfio_pfn *vpfn)
return ret;
}
-struct vwork {
- struct mm_struct *mm;
- long npage;
- struct work_struct work;
-};
-
-/* delayed decrement/increment for locked_vm */
-static void vfio_lock_acct_bg(struct work_struct *work)
-{
- struct vwork *vwork = container_of(work, struct vwork, work);
- struct mm_struct *mm;
-
- mm = vwork->mm;
- down_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
- mm->locked_vm += vwork->npage;
- up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
- mmput(mm);
- kfree(vwork);
-}
-
-static void vfio_lock_acct(struct task_struct *task, long npage)
+static int vfio_lock_acct(struct task_struct *task, long npage)
{
- struct vwork *vwork;
struct mm_struct *mm;
bool is_current;
+ int ret;
if (!npage)
- return;
+ return 0;
is_current = (task->mm == current->mm);
mm = is_current ? task->mm : get_task_mm(task);
if (!mm)
- return; /* process exited */
+ return -ESRCH; /* process exited */
- if (down_write_trylock(&mm->mmap_sem)) {
- mm->locked_vm += npage;
- up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
- if (!is_current)
- mmput(mm);
- return;
- }
+ ret = down_write_killable(&mm->mmap_sem);
+ if (!ret) {
+ if (npage < 0) {
+ mm->locked_vm += npage;
+ } else {
+ unsigned long limit;
- if (is_current) {
- mm = get_task_mm(task);
- if (!mm)
- return;
+ limit = task_rlimit(task, RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
+
+ if (mm->locked_vm + npage <= limit)
+ mm->locked_vm += npage;
+ else
+ ret = -ENOMEM;
+ }
+
+ up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
}
- /*
- * Couldn't get mmap_sem lock, so must setup to update
- * mm->locked_vm later. If locked_vm were atomic, we
- * wouldn't need this silliness
- */
- vwork = kmalloc(sizeof(struct vwork), GFP_KERNEL);
- if (WARN_ON(!vwork)) {
+ if (!is_current)
mmput(mm);
- return;
- }
- INIT_WORK(&vwork->work, vfio_lock_acct_bg);
- vwork->mm = mm;
- vwork->npage = npage;
- schedule_work(&vwork->work);
+
+ return ret;
}
/*
@@ -405,7 +379,7 @@ static int vaddr_get_pfn(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long vaddr,
static long vfio_pin_pages_remote(struct vfio_dma *dma, unsigned long vaddr,
long npage, unsigned long *pfn_base)
{
- unsigned long limit = rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
+ unsigned long pfn = 0, limit = rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
bool lock_cap = capable(CAP_IPC_LOCK);
long ret, pinned = 0, lock_acct = 0;
bool rsvd;
@@ -442,8 +416,6 @@ static long vfio_pin_pages_remote(struct vfio_dma *dma, unsigned long vaddr,
/* Lock all the consecutive pages from pfn_base */
for (vaddr += PAGE_SIZE, iova += PAGE_SIZE; pinned < npage;
pinned++, vaddr += PAGE_SIZE, iova += PAGE_SIZE) {
- unsigned long pfn = 0;
-
ret = vaddr_get_pfn(current->mm, vaddr, dma->prot, &pfn);
if (ret)
break;
@@ -460,14 +432,25 @@ static long vfio_pin_pages_remote(struct vfio_dma *dma, unsigned long vaddr,
put_pfn(pfn, dma->prot);
pr_warn("%s: RLIMIT_MEMLOCK (%ld) exceeded\n",
__func__, limit << PAGE_SHIFT);
- break;
+ ret = -ENOMEM;
+ goto unpin_out;
}
lock_acct++;
}
}
out:
- vfio_lock_acct(current, lock_acct);
+ ret = vfio_lock_acct(current, lock_acct);
+
+unpin_out:
+ if (ret) {
+ if (!rsvd) {
+ for (pfn = *pfn_base ; pinned ; pfn++, pinned--)
+ put_pfn(pfn, dma->prot);
+ }
+
+ return ret;
+ }
return pinned;
}
@@ -522,8 +505,14 @@ static int vfio_pin_page_external(struct vfio_dma *dma, unsigned long vaddr,
goto pin_page_exit;
}
- if (!rsvd && do_accounting)
- vfio_lock_acct(dma->task, 1);
+ if (!rsvd && do_accounting) {
+ ret = vfio_lock_acct(dma->task, 1);
+ if (ret) {
+ put_pfn(*pfn_base, dma->prot);
+ goto pin_page_exit;
+ }
+ }
+
ret = 1;
pin_page_exit:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 01:28:06PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> If the mmap_sem is contented then the vfio type1 IOMMU backend will
> defer locked page accounting updates to a workqueue task. This has a
> few problems and depending on which side the user tries to play, they
> might be over-penalized for unmaps that haven't yet been accounted or
> race the workqueue to enter more mappings than they're allowed. The
> original intent of this workqueue mechanism seems to be focused on
> reducing latency through the ioctl, but we cannot do so at the cost
> of correctness. Remove this workqueue mechanism and update the
> callers to allow for failure. We can also now recheck the limit under
> write lock to make sure we don't exceed it.
>
> vfio_pin_pages_remote() also now necessarily includes an unwind path
> which we can jump to directly if the consecutive page pinning finds
> that we're exceeding the user's memory limits. This avoids the
> current lazy approach which does accounting and mapping up to the
> fault, only to return an error on the next iteration to unwind the
> entire vfio_dma.
>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Peter Xu <[email protected]>
--
Peter Xu
Hi Alex,
On 11/04/2017 21:28, Alex Williamson wrote:
> If the mmap_sem is contented then the vfio type1 IOMMU backend will
> defer locked page accounting updates to a workqueue task. This has a
> few problems and depending on which side the user tries to play, they
> might be over-penalized for unmaps that haven't yet been accounted or
> race the workqueue to enter more mappings than they're allowed. The
> original intent of this workqueue mechanism seems to be focused on
> reducing latency through the ioctl, but we cannot do so at the cost
> of correctness. Remove this workqueue mechanism and update the
> callers to allow for failure. We can also now recheck the limit under
> write lock to make sure we don't exceed it.
>
> vfio_pin_pages_remote() also now necessarily includes an unwind path
> which we can jump to directly if the consecutive page pinning finds
> that we're exceeding the user's memory limits. This avoids the
> current lazy approach which does accounting and mapping up to the
> fault, only to return an error on the next iteration to unwind the
> entire vfio_dma.
>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
Thanks
Eric
> ---
>
> v3: Update for comments from Peter
> - Use task_rlimit() exclusively
> - Discuss vfio_pin_pages_remote() exit branch in commitlog
>
> drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c | 99 +++++++++++++++++----------------------
> 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> index 32d2633092a3..176ebcc0ffa2 100644
> --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> @@ -246,69 +246,43 @@ static int vfio_iova_put_vfio_pfn(struct vfio_dma *dma, struct vfio_pfn *vpfn)
> return ret;
> }
>
> -struct vwork {
> - struct mm_struct *mm;
> - long npage;
> - struct work_struct work;
> -};
> -
> -/* delayed decrement/increment for locked_vm */
> -static void vfio_lock_acct_bg(struct work_struct *work)
> -{
> - struct vwork *vwork = container_of(work, struct vwork, work);
> - struct mm_struct *mm;
> -
> - mm = vwork->mm;
> - down_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> - mm->locked_vm += vwork->npage;
> - up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> - mmput(mm);
> - kfree(vwork);
> -}
> -
> -static void vfio_lock_acct(struct task_struct *task, long npage)
> +static int vfio_lock_acct(struct task_struct *task, long npage)
> {
> - struct vwork *vwork;
> struct mm_struct *mm;
> bool is_current;
> + int ret;
>
> if (!npage)
> - return;
> + return 0;
>
> is_current = (task->mm == current->mm);
>
> mm = is_current ? task->mm : get_task_mm(task);
> if (!mm)
> - return; /* process exited */
> + return -ESRCH; /* process exited */
>
> - if (down_write_trylock(&mm->mmap_sem)) {
> - mm->locked_vm += npage;
> - up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> - if (!is_current)
> - mmput(mm);
> - return;
> - }
> + ret = down_write_killable(&mm->mmap_sem);
> + if (!ret) {
> + if (npage < 0) {
> + mm->locked_vm += npage;
> + } else {
> + unsigned long limit;
>
> - if (is_current) {
> - mm = get_task_mm(task);
> - if (!mm)
> - return;
> + limit = task_rlimit(task, RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> +
> + if (mm->locked_vm + npage <= limit)
> + mm->locked_vm += npage;
> + else
> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> + }
> +
> + up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> }
>
> - /*
> - * Couldn't get mmap_sem lock, so must setup to update
> - * mm->locked_vm later. If locked_vm were atomic, we
> - * wouldn't need this silliness
> - */
> - vwork = kmalloc(sizeof(struct vwork), GFP_KERNEL);
> - if (WARN_ON(!vwork)) {
> + if (!is_current)
> mmput(mm);
> - return;
> - }
> - INIT_WORK(&vwork->work, vfio_lock_acct_bg);
> - vwork->mm = mm;
> - vwork->npage = npage;
> - schedule_work(&vwork->work);
> +
> + return ret;
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -405,7 +379,7 @@ static int vaddr_get_pfn(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long vaddr,
> static long vfio_pin_pages_remote(struct vfio_dma *dma, unsigned long vaddr,
> long npage, unsigned long *pfn_base)
> {
> - unsigned long limit = rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> + unsigned long pfn = 0, limit = rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> bool lock_cap = capable(CAP_IPC_LOCK);
> long ret, pinned = 0, lock_acct = 0;
> bool rsvd;
> @@ -442,8 +416,6 @@ static long vfio_pin_pages_remote(struct vfio_dma *dma, unsigned long vaddr,
> /* Lock all the consecutive pages from pfn_base */
> for (vaddr += PAGE_SIZE, iova += PAGE_SIZE; pinned < npage;
> pinned++, vaddr += PAGE_SIZE, iova += PAGE_SIZE) {
> - unsigned long pfn = 0;
> -
> ret = vaddr_get_pfn(current->mm, vaddr, dma->prot, &pfn);
> if (ret)
> break;
> @@ -460,14 +432,25 @@ static long vfio_pin_pages_remote(struct vfio_dma *dma, unsigned long vaddr,
> put_pfn(pfn, dma->prot);
> pr_warn("%s: RLIMIT_MEMLOCK (%ld) exceeded\n",
> __func__, limit << PAGE_SHIFT);
> - break;
> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> + goto unpin_out;
> }
> lock_acct++;
> }
> }
>
> out:
> - vfio_lock_acct(current, lock_acct);
> + ret = vfio_lock_acct(current, lock_acct);
> +
> +unpin_out:
> + if (ret) {
> + if (!rsvd) {
> + for (pfn = *pfn_base ; pinned ; pfn++, pinned--)
> + put_pfn(pfn, dma->prot);
> + }
> +
> + return ret;
> + }
>
> return pinned;
> }
> @@ -522,8 +505,14 @@ static int vfio_pin_page_external(struct vfio_dma *dma, unsigned long vaddr,
> goto pin_page_exit;
> }
>
> - if (!rsvd && do_accounting)
> - vfio_lock_acct(dma->task, 1);
> + if (!rsvd && do_accounting) {
> + ret = vfio_lock_acct(dma->task, 1);
> + if (ret) {
> + put_pfn(*pfn_base, dma->prot);
> + goto pin_page_exit;
> + }
> + }
> +
> ret = 1;
>
> pin_page_exit:
>
On 4/12/2017 12:58 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> If the mmap_sem is contented then the vfio type1 IOMMU backend will
> defer locked page accounting updates to a workqueue task. This has a
> few problems and depending on which side the user tries to play, they
> might be over-penalized for unmaps that haven't yet been accounted or
> race the workqueue to enter more mappings than they're allowed. The
> original intent of this workqueue mechanism seems to be focused on
> reducing latency through the ioctl, but we cannot do so at the cost
> of correctness. Remove this workqueue mechanism and update the
> callers to allow for failure. We can also now recheck the limit under
> write lock to make sure we don't exceed it.
>
> vfio_pin_pages_remote() also now necessarily includes an unwind path
> which we can jump to directly if the consecutive page pinning finds
> that we're exceeding the user's memory limits. This avoids the
> current lazy approach which does accounting and mapping up to the
> fault, only to return an error on the next iteration to unwind the
> entire vfio_dma.
>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> v3: Update for comments from Peter
> - Use task_rlimit() exclusively
> - Discuss vfio_pin_pages_remote() exit branch in commitlog
>
> drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c | 99 +++++++++++++++++----------------------
> 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> index 32d2633092a3..176ebcc0ffa2 100644
> --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> @@ -246,69 +246,43 @@ static int vfio_iova_put_vfio_pfn(struct vfio_dma *dma, struct vfio_pfn *vpfn)
> return ret;
> }
>
> -struct vwork {
> - struct mm_struct *mm;
> - long npage;
> - struct work_struct work;
> -};
> -
> -/* delayed decrement/increment for locked_vm */
> -static void vfio_lock_acct_bg(struct work_struct *work)
> -{
> - struct vwork *vwork = container_of(work, struct vwork, work);
> - struct mm_struct *mm;
> -
> - mm = vwork->mm;
> - down_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> - mm->locked_vm += vwork->npage;
> - up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> - mmput(mm);
> - kfree(vwork);
> -}
> -
> -static void vfio_lock_acct(struct task_struct *task, long npage)
> +static int vfio_lock_acct(struct task_struct *task, long npage)
> {
> - struct vwork *vwork;
> struct mm_struct *mm;
> bool is_current;
> + int ret;
>
> if (!npage)
> - return;
> + return 0;
>
> is_current = (task->mm == current->mm);
>
> mm = is_current ? task->mm : get_task_mm(task);
> if (!mm)
> - return; /* process exited */
> + return -ESRCH; /* process exited */
>
> - if (down_write_trylock(&mm->mmap_sem)) {
> - mm->locked_vm += npage;
> - up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> - if (!is_current)
> - mmput(mm);
> - return;
> - }
> + ret = down_write_killable(&mm->mmap_sem);
> + if (!ret) {
> + if (npage < 0) {
> + mm->locked_vm += npage;
> + } else {
> + unsigned long limit;
>
> - if (is_current) {
> - mm = get_task_mm(task);
> - if (!mm)
> - return;
> + limit = task_rlimit(task, RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> +
> + if (mm->locked_vm + npage <= limit)
> + mm->locked_vm += npage;
> + else
> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> + }
> +
Sorry if I'm late here on my review.
There are rlimit checks before calling vfio_lock_acct() while pinning
pages. I agree this is checked holding locks, so this check is more
robust, but still it feels redundant. I think you can remove checks from
vfio_pin_page_external() and vfio_pin_pages_remote().
Also while checking the limit, !lock_cap checks is not considered here.
That would mean that there code would impose limit check even without
lock capability?
Thanks,
Kirti
> + up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> }
>
> - /*
> - * Couldn't get mmap_sem lock, so must setup to update
> - * mm->locked_vm later. If locked_vm were atomic, we
> - * wouldn't need this silliness
> - */
> - vwork = kmalloc(sizeof(struct vwork), GFP_KERNEL);
> - if (WARN_ON(!vwork)) {
> + if (!is_current)
> mmput(mm);
> - return;
> - }
> - INIT_WORK(&vwork->work, vfio_lock_acct_bg);
> - vwork->mm = mm;
> - vwork->npage = npage;
> - schedule_work(&vwork->work);
> +
> + return ret;
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -405,7 +379,7 @@ static int vaddr_get_pfn(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long vaddr,
> static long vfio_pin_pages_remote(struct vfio_dma *dma, unsigned long vaddr,
> long npage, unsigned long *pfn_base)
> {
> - unsigned long limit = rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> + unsigned long pfn = 0, limit = rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> bool lock_cap = capable(CAP_IPC_LOCK);
> long ret, pinned = 0, lock_acct = 0;
> bool rsvd;
> @@ -442,8 +416,6 @@ static long vfio_pin_pages_remote(struct vfio_dma *dma, unsigned long vaddr,
> /* Lock all the consecutive pages from pfn_base */
> for (vaddr += PAGE_SIZE, iova += PAGE_SIZE; pinned < npage;
> pinned++, vaddr += PAGE_SIZE, iova += PAGE_SIZE) {
> - unsigned long pfn = 0;
> -
> ret = vaddr_get_pfn(current->mm, vaddr, dma->prot, &pfn);
> if (ret)
> break;
> @@ -460,14 +432,25 @@ static long vfio_pin_pages_remote(struct vfio_dma *dma, unsigned long vaddr,
> put_pfn(pfn, dma->prot);
> pr_warn("%s: RLIMIT_MEMLOCK (%ld) exceeded\n",
> __func__, limit << PAGE_SHIFT);
> - break;
> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> + goto unpin_out;
> }
> lock_acct++;
> }
> }
>
> out:
> - vfio_lock_acct(current, lock_acct);
> + ret = vfio_lock_acct(current, lock_acct);
> +
> +unpin_out:
> + if (ret) {
> + if (!rsvd) {
> + for (pfn = *pfn_base ; pinned ; pfn++, pinned--)
> + put_pfn(pfn, dma->prot);
> + }
> +
> + return ret;
> + }
>
> return pinned;
> }
> @@ -522,8 +505,14 @@ static int vfio_pin_page_external(struct vfio_dma *dma, unsigned long vaddr,
> goto pin_page_exit;
> }
>
> - if (!rsvd && do_accounting)
> - vfio_lock_acct(dma->task, 1);
> + if (!rsvd && do_accounting) {
> + ret = vfio_lock_acct(dma->task, 1);
> + if (ret) {
> + put_pfn(*pfn_base, dma->prot);
> + goto pin_page_exit;
> + }
> + }
> +
> ret = 1;
>
> pin_page_exit:
>
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 00:51:28 +0530
Kirti Wankhede <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 4/12/2017 12:58 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > If the mmap_sem is contented then the vfio type1 IOMMU backend will
> > defer locked page accounting updates to a workqueue task. This has a
> > few problems and depending on which side the user tries to play, they
> > might be over-penalized for unmaps that haven't yet been accounted or
> > race the workqueue to enter more mappings than they're allowed. The
> > original intent of this workqueue mechanism seems to be focused on
> > reducing latency through the ioctl, but we cannot do so at the cost
> > of correctness. Remove this workqueue mechanism and update the
> > callers to allow for failure. We can also now recheck the limit under
> > write lock to make sure we don't exceed it.
> >
> > vfio_pin_pages_remote() also now necessarily includes an unwind path
> > which we can jump to directly if the consecutive page pinning finds
> > that we're exceeding the user's memory limits. This avoids the
> > current lazy approach which does accounting and mapping up to the
> > fault, only to return an error on the next iteration to unwind the
> > entire vfio_dma.
> >
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <[email protected]>
> > ---
> >
> > v3: Update for comments from Peter
> > - Use task_rlimit() exclusively
> > - Discuss vfio_pin_pages_remote() exit branch in commitlog
> >
> > drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c | 99 +++++++++++++++++----------------------
> > 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > index 32d2633092a3..176ebcc0ffa2 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > @@ -246,69 +246,43 @@ static int vfio_iova_put_vfio_pfn(struct vfio_dma *dma, struct vfio_pfn *vpfn)
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > -struct vwork {
> > - struct mm_struct *mm;
> > - long npage;
> > - struct work_struct work;
> > -};
> > -
> > -/* delayed decrement/increment for locked_vm */
> > -static void vfio_lock_acct_bg(struct work_struct *work)
> > -{
> > - struct vwork *vwork = container_of(work, struct vwork, work);
> > - struct mm_struct *mm;
> > -
> > - mm = vwork->mm;
> > - down_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> > - mm->locked_vm += vwork->npage;
> > - up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> > - mmput(mm);
> > - kfree(vwork);
> > -}
> > -
> > -static void vfio_lock_acct(struct task_struct *task, long npage)
> > +static int vfio_lock_acct(struct task_struct *task, long npage)
> > {
> > - struct vwork *vwork;
> > struct mm_struct *mm;
> > bool is_current;
> > + int ret;
> >
> > if (!npage)
> > - return;
> > + return 0;
> >
> > is_current = (task->mm == current->mm);
> >
> > mm = is_current ? task->mm : get_task_mm(task);
> > if (!mm)
> > - return; /* process exited */
> > + return -ESRCH; /* process exited */
> >
> > - if (down_write_trylock(&mm->mmap_sem)) {
> > - mm->locked_vm += npage;
> > - up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> > - if (!is_current)
> > - mmput(mm);
> > - return;
> > - }
> > + ret = down_write_killable(&mm->mmap_sem);
> > + if (!ret) {
> > + if (npage < 0) {
> > + mm->locked_vm += npage;
> > + } else {
> > + unsigned long limit;
> >
> > - if (is_current) {
> > - mm = get_task_mm(task);
> > - if (!mm)
> > - return;
> > + limit = task_rlimit(task, RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > +
> > + if (mm->locked_vm + npage <= limit)
> > + mm->locked_vm += npage;
> > + else
> > + ret = -ENOMEM;
> > + }
> > +
>
> Sorry if I'm late here on my review.
>
> There are rlimit checks before calling vfio_lock_acct() while pinning
> pages. I agree this is checked holding locks, so this check is more
> robust, but still it feels redundant. I think you can remove checks from
> vfio_pin_page_external() and vfio_pin_pages_remote().
If we removed those pre-checks then a user/mdev vendor driver would be
able to pin massive amounts of memory, potentially causing a DoS on the
host (ex. trigger OOM), before we bother to test whether they really
have permission to do so. I think redundancy is better.
> Also while checking the limit, !lock_cap checks is not considered here.
> That would mean that there code would impose limit check even without
> lock capability?
That's a bug! Thanks,
Alex
> > + up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> > }
> >
> > - /*
> > - * Couldn't get mmap_sem lock, so must setup to update
> > - * mm->locked_vm later. If locked_vm were atomic, we
> > - * wouldn't need this silliness
> > - */
> > - vwork = kmalloc(sizeof(struct vwork), GFP_KERNEL);
> > - if (WARN_ON(!vwork)) {
> > + if (!is_current)
> > mmput(mm);
> > - return;
> > - }
> > - INIT_WORK(&vwork->work, vfio_lock_acct_bg);
> > - vwork->mm = mm;
> > - vwork->npage = npage;
> > - schedule_work(&vwork->work);
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -405,7 +379,7 @@ static int vaddr_get_pfn(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long vaddr,
> > static long vfio_pin_pages_remote(struct vfio_dma *dma, unsigned long vaddr,
> > long npage, unsigned long *pfn_base)
> > {
> > - unsigned long limit = rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > + unsigned long pfn = 0, limit = rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > bool lock_cap = capable(CAP_IPC_LOCK);
> > long ret, pinned = 0, lock_acct = 0;
> > bool rsvd;
> > @@ -442,8 +416,6 @@ static long vfio_pin_pages_remote(struct vfio_dma *dma, unsigned long vaddr,
> > /* Lock all the consecutive pages from pfn_base */
> > for (vaddr += PAGE_SIZE, iova += PAGE_SIZE; pinned < npage;
> > pinned++, vaddr += PAGE_SIZE, iova += PAGE_SIZE) {
> > - unsigned long pfn = 0;
> > -
> > ret = vaddr_get_pfn(current->mm, vaddr, dma->prot, &pfn);
> > if (ret)
> > break;
> > @@ -460,14 +432,25 @@ static long vfio_pin_pages_remote(struct vfio_dma *dma, unsigned long vaddr,
> > put_pfn(pfn, dma->prot);
> > pr_warn("%s: RLIMIT_MEMLOCK (%ld) exceeded\n",
> > __func__, limit << PAGE_SHIFT);
> > - break;
> > + ret = -ENOMEM;
> > + goto unpin_out;
> > }
> > lock_acct++;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > out:
> > - vfio_lock_acct(current, lock_acct);
> > + ret = vfio_lock_acct(current, lock_acct);
> > +
> > +unpin_out:
> > + if (ret) {
> > + if (!rsvd) {
> > + for (pfn = *pfn_base ; pinned ; pfn++, pinned--)
> > + put_pfn(pfn, dma->prot);
> > + }
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> >
> > return pinned;
> > }
> > @@ -522,8 +505,14 @@ static int vfio_pin_page_external(struct vfio_dma *dma, unsigned long vaddr,
> > goto pin_page_exit;
> > }
> >
> > - if (!rsvd && do_accounting)
> > - vfio_lock_acct(dma->task, 1);
> > + if (!rsvd && do_accounting) {
> > + ret = vfio_lock_acct(dma->task, 1);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + put_pfn(*pfn_base, dma->prot);
> > + goto pin_page_exit;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > ret = 1;
> >
> > pin_page_exit:
> >
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 14:58:14 -0600
Alex Williamson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 00:51:28 +0530
> Kirti Wankhede <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 4/12/2017 12:58 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > If the mmap_sem is contented then the vfio type1 IOMMU backend will
> > > defer locked page accounting updates to a workqueue task. This has a
> > > few problems and depending on which side the user tries to play, they
> > > might be over-penalized for unmaps that haven't yet been accounted or
> > > race the workqueue to enter more mappings than they're allowed. The
> > > original intent of this workqueue mechanism seems to be focused on
> > > reducing latency through the ioctl, but we cannot do so at the cost
> > > of correctness. Remove this workqueue mechanism and update the
> > > callers to allow for failure. We can also now recheck the limit under
> > > write lock to make sure we don't exceed it.
> > >
> > > vfio_pin_pages_remote() also now necessarily includes an unwind path
> > > which we can jump to directly if the consecutive page pinning finds
> > > that we're exceeding the user's memory limits. This avoids the
> > > current lazy approach which does accounting and mapping up to the
> > > fault, only to return an error on the next iteration to unwind the
> > > entire vfio_dma.
> > >
> > > Cc: [email protected]
> > > Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > v3: Update for comments from Peter
> > > - Use task_rlimit() exclusively
> > > - Discuss vfio_pin_pages_remote() exit branch in commitlog
> > >
> > > drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c | 99 +++++++++++++++++----------------------
> > > 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > > index 32d2633092a3..176ebcc0ffa2 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > > @@ -246,69 +246,43 @@ static int vfio_iova_put_vfio_pfn(struct vfio_dma *dma, struct vfio_pfn *vpfn)
> > > return ret;
> > > }
> > >
> > > -struct vwork {
> > > - struct mm_struct *mm;
> > > - long npage;
> > > - struct work_struct work;
> > > -};
> > > -
> > > -/* delayed decrement/increment for locked_vm */
> > > -static void vfio_lock_acct_bg(struct work_struct *work)
> > > -{
> > > - struct vwork *vwork = container_of(work, struct vwork, work);
> > > - struct mm_struct *mm;
> > > -
> > > - mm = vwork->mm;
> > > - down_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> > > - mm->locked_vm += vwork->npage;
> > > - up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> > > - mmput(mm);
> > > - kfree(vwork);
> > > -}
> > > -
> > > -static void vfio_lock_acct(struct task_struct *task, long npage)
> > > +static int vfio_lock_acct(struct task_struct *task, long npage)
> > > {
> > > - struct vwork *vwork;
> > > struct mm_struct *mm;
> > > bool is_current;
> > > + int ret;
> > >
> > > if (!npage)
> > > - return;
> > > + return 0;
> > >
> > > is_current = (task->mm == current->mm);
> > >
> > > mm = is_current ? task->mm : get_task_mm(task);
> > > if (!mm)
> > > - return; /* process exited */
> > > + return -ESRCH; /* process exited */
> > >
> > > - if (down_write_trylock(&mm->mmap_sem)) {
> > > - mm->locked_vm += npage;
> > > - up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> > > - if (!is_current)
> > > - mmput(mm);
> > > - return;
> > > - }
> > > + ret = down_write_killable(&mm->mmap_sem);
> > > + if (!ret) {
> > > + if (npage < 0) {
> > > + mm->locked_vm += npage;
> > > + } else {
> > > + unsigned long limit;
> > >
> > > - if (is_current) {
> > > - mm = get_task_mm(task);
> > > - if (!mm)
> > > - return;
> > > + limit = task_rlimit(task, RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > > +
> > > + if (mm->locked_vm + npage <= limit)
> > > + mm->locked_vm += npage;
> > > + else
> > > + ret = -ENOMEM;
> > > + }
> > > +
> >
> > Sorry if I'm late here on my review.
> >
> > There are rlimit checks before calling vfio_lock_acct() while pinning
> > pages. I agree this is checked holding locks, so this check is more
> > robust, but still it feels redundant. I think you can remove checks from
> > vfio_pin_page_external() and vfio_pin_pages_remote().
>
> If we removed those pre-checks then a user/mdev vendor driver would be
> able to pin massive amounts of memory, potentially causing a DoS on the
> host (ex. trigger OOM), before we bother to test whether they really
> have permission to do so. I think redundancy is better.
Perhaps _external is overly redundant since it's only doing one page
increments, _remote could go well into the above scenario w/o the
redundancy. Thanks,
Alex
> > Also while checking the limit, !lock_cap checks is not considered here.
> > That would mean that there code would impose limit check even without
> > lock capability?
>
> That's a bug! Thanks,
>
> Alex
>
> > > + up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> > > }
> > >
> > > - /*
> > > - * Couldn't get mmap_sem lock, so must setup to update
> > > - * mm->locked_vm later. If locked_vm were atomic, we
> > > - * wouldn't need this silliness
> > > - */
> > > - vwork = kmalloc(sizeof(struct vwork), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > - if (WARN_ON(!vwork)) {
> > > + if (!is_current)
> > > mmput(mm);
> > > - return;
> > > - }
> > > - INIT_WORK(&vwork->work, vfio_lock_acct_bg);
> > > - vwork->mm = mm;
> > > - vwork->npage = npage;
> > > - schedule_work(&vwork->work);
> > > +
> > > + return ret;
> > > }
> > >
> > > /*
> > > @@ -405,7 +379,7 @@ static int vaddr_get_pfn(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long vaddr,
> > > static long vfio_pin_pages_remote(struct vfio_dma *dma, unsigned long vaddr,
> > > long npage, unsigned long *pfn_base)
> > > {
> > > - unsigned long limit = rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > > + unsigned long pfn = 0, limit = rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > > bool lock_cap = capable(CAP_IPC_LOCK);
> > > long ret, pinned = 0, lock_acct = 0;
> > > bool rsvd;
> > > @@ -442,8 +416,6 @@ static long vfio_pin_pages_remote(struct vfio_dma *dma, unsigned long vaddr,
> > > /* Lock all the consecutive pages from pfn_base */
> > > for (vaddr += PAGE_SIZE, iova += PAGE_SIZE; pinned < npage;
> > > pinned++, vaddr += PAGE_SIZE, iova += PAGE_SIZE) {
> > > - unsigned long pfn = 0;
> > > -
> > > ret = vaddr_get_pfn(current->mm, vaddr, dma->prot, &pfn);
> > > if (ret)
> > > break;
> > > @@ -460,14 +432,25 @@ static long vfio_pin_pages_remote(struct vfio_dma *dma, unsigned long vaddr,
> > > put_pfn(pfn, dma->prot);
> > > pr_warn("%s: RLIMIT_MEMLOCK (%ld) exceeded\n",
> > > __func__, limit << PAGE_SHIFT);
> > > - break;
> > > + ret = -ENOMEM;
> > > + goto unpin_out;
> > > }
> > > lock_acct++;
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > out:
> > > - vfio_lock_acct(current, lock_acct);
> > > + ret = vfio_lock_acct(current, lock_acct);
> > > +
> > > +unpin_out:
> > > + if (ret) {
> > > + if (!rsvd) {
> > > + for (pfn = *pfn_base ; pinned ; pfn++, pinned--)
> > > + put_pfn(pfn, dma->prot);
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + return ret;
> > > + }
> > >
> > > return pinned;
> > > }
> > > @@ -522,8 +505,14 @@ static int vfio_pin_page_external(struct vfio_dma *dma, unsigned long vaddr,
> > > goto pin_page_exit;
> > > }
> > >
> > > - if (!rsvd && do_accounting)
> > > - vfio_lock_acct(dma->task, 1);
> > > + if (!rsvd && do_accounting) {
> > > + ret = vfio_lock_acct(dma->task, 1);
> > > + if (ret) {
> > > + put_pfn(*pfn_base, dma->prot);
> > > + goto pin_page_exit;
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > ret = 1;
> > >
> > > pin_page_exit:
> > >
>