Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 8 May 2020 10:30:42 -0400
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Cc:     Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cohuck@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] vfio/type1: Support faulting PFNMAP vmas
Message-ID: <20200508143042.GY228260@xz-x1>
References: <158871401328.15589.17598154478222071285.stgit@gimli.home>
 <158871568480.15589.17339878308143043906.stgit@gimli.home>
 <20200507212443.GO228260@xz-x1>
 <20200507235421.GK26002@ziepe.ca>
 <20200508021939.GT228260@xz-x1>
 <20200508121013.GO26002@ziepe.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200508121013.GO26002@ziepe.ca>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 09:10:13AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 10:19:39PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 08:54:21PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 05:24:43PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 03:54:44PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > > With conversion to follow_pfn(), DMA mapping a PFNMAP range depends on
> > > > > the range being faulted into the vma.  Add support to manually provide
> > > > > that, in the same way as done on KVM with hva_to_pfn_remapped().
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
> > > > >  drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c |   36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > > > >  1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > > > > index cc1d64765ce7..4a4cb7cd86b2 100644
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > > > > @@ -317,6 +317,32 @@ static int put_pfn(unsigned long pfn, int prot)
> > > > >  	return 0;
> > > > >  }
> > > > >  
> > > > > +static int follow_fault_pfn(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct mm_struct *mm,
> > > > > +			    unsigned long vaddr, unsigned long *pfn,
> > > > > +			    bool write_fault)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	int ret;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	ret = follow_pfn(vma, vaddr, pfn);
> > > > > +	if (ret) {
> > > > > +		bool unlocked = false;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +		ret = fixup_user_fault(NULL, mm, vaddr,
> > > > > +				       FAULT_FLAG_REMOTE |
> > > > > +				       (write_fault ?  FAULT_FLAG_WRITE : 0),
> > > > > +				       &unlocked);
> > > > > +		if (unlocked)
> > > > > +			return -EAGAIN;
> > > > 
> > > > Hi, Alex,
> > > > 
> > > > IIUC this retry is not needed too because fixup_user_fault() will guarantee the
> > > > fault-in is done correctly with the valid PTE as long as ret==0, even if
> > > > unlocked==true.
> > > 
> > > It is true, and today it is fine, but be careful when reworking this
> > > to use notifiers as unlocked also means things like the vma pointer
> > > are invalidated.
> > 
> > Oh right, thanks for noticing that.  Then we should probably still keep the
> > retry logic... because otherwise the latter follow_pfn() could be referencing
> > an invalid vma already...
> 
> I looked briefly and thought this flow used the vma only once?

        ret = follow_pfn(vma, vaddr, pfn);
        if (ret) {
                bool unlocked = false;
 
                ret = fixup_user_fault(NULL, mm, vaddr,
                                       FAULT_FLAG_REMOTE |
                                       (write_fault ?  FAULT_FLAG_WRITE : 0),
                                       &unlocked);
                if (unlocked)
                        return -EAGAIN;
 
                if (ret)
                        return ret;
 
                ret = follow_pfn(vma, vaddr, pfn);      <--------------- [1]
        }

So imo the 2nd follow_pfn() [1] could be racy if without the unlocked check.

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu