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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 2/6] arm64: kvm: Introduce MTE VM feature
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>,
        "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>, Haibo Xu <Haibo.Xu@arm.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>,
        Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
        Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com>
References: <20210312151902.17853-1-steven.price@arm.com>
 <20210312151902.17853-3-steven.price@arm.com>
 <20210327152324.GA28167@arm.com> <20210328122131.GB17535@arm.com>
 <e0b88560-34e1-dcc4-aaa7-9a7a5b771824@arm.com>
 <20210330103013.GD18075@arm.com>
 <8977120b-841d-4882-2472-6e403bc9c797@redhat.com>
 <20210331092109.GA21921@arm.com>
 <d545a051-a02a-4c3a-0afe-66612839ba32@redhat.com>
From:   Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>
Message-ID: <86a968c8-7a0e-44a4-28c3-bac62c2b7d65@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 Mar 2021 11:41:20 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d545a051-a02a-4c3a-0afe-66612839ba32@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 31/03/2021 10:32, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 31.03.21 11:21, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 09:34:44AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 30.03.21 12:30, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 05:06:51PM +0100, Steven Price wrote:
>>>>> On 28/03/2021 13:21, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 03:23:24PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 03:18:58PM +0000, Steven Price wrote:
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
>>>>>>>> index 77cb2d28f2a4..b31b7a821f90 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -879,6 +879,22 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu 
>>>>>>>> *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
>>>>>>>>         if (vma_pagesize == PAGE_SIZE && !force_pte)
>>>>>>>>             vma_pagesize = transparent_hugepage_adjust(memslot, 
>>>>>>>> hva,
>>>>>>>>                                    &pfn, &fault_ipa);
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +    if (fault_status != FSC_PERM && kvm_has_mte(kvm) && 
>>>>>>>> pfn_valid(pfn)) {
>>>>>>>> +        /*
>>>>>>>> +         * VM will be able to see the page's tags, so we must 
>>>>>>>> ensure
>>>>>>>> +         * they have been initialised. if PG_mte_tagged is set, 
>>>>>>>> tags
>>>>>>>> +         * have already been initialised.
>>>>>>>> +         */
>>>>>>>> +        struct page *page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
>>>>>>>> +        unsigned long i, nr_pages = vma_pagesize >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +        for (i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++, page++) {
>>>>>>>> +            if (!test_and_set_bit(PG_mte_tagged, &page->flags))
>>>>>>>> +                mte_clear_page_tags(page_address(page));
>>>>>>>> +        }
>>>>>>>> +    }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This pfn_valid() check may be problematic. Following commit 
>>>>>>> eeb0753ba27b
>>>>>>> ("arm64/mm: Fix pfn_valid() for ZONE_DEVICE based memory"), it 
>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>> true for ZONE_DEVICE memory but such memory is allowed not to 
>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>> MTE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some more thinking, this should be safe as any ZONE_DEVICE would be
>>>>>> mapped as untagged memory in the kernel linear map. It could be 
>>>>>> slightly
>>>>>> inefficient if it unnecessarily tries to clear tags in ZONE_DEVICE,
>>>>>> untagged memory. Another overhead is pfn_valid() which will likely 
>>>>>> end
>>>>>> up calling memblock_is_map_memory().
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, the bigger issue is that Stage 2 cannot disable tagging for
>>>>>> Stage 1 unless the memory is Non-cacheable or Device at S2. Is 
>>>>>> there a
>>>>>> way to detect what gets mapped in the guest as Normal Cacheable 
>>>>>> memory
>>>>>> and make sure it's only early memory or hotplug but no ZONE_DEVICE 
>>>>>> (or
>>>>>> something else like on-chip memory)?  If we can't guarantee that all
>>>>>> Cacheable memory given to a guest supports tags, we should disable 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> feature altogether.
>>>>>
>>>>> In stage 2 I believe we only have two types of mapping - 'normal' or
>>>>> DEVICE_nGnRE (see stage2_map_set_prot_attr()). Filtering out the 
>>>>> latter is a
>>>>> case of checking the 'device' variable, and makes sense to avoid the
>>>>> overhead you describe.
>>>>>
>>>>> This should also guarantee that all stage-2 cacheable memory 
>>>>> supports tags,
>>>>> as kvm_is_device_pfn() is simply !pfn_valid(), and pfn_valid() 
>>>>> should only
>>>>> be true for memory that Linux considers "normal".
>>>
>>> If you think "normal" == "normal System RAM", that's wrong; see below.
>>
>> By "normal" I think both Steven and I meant the Normal Cacheable memory
>> attribute (another being the Device memory attribute).

Sadly there's no good standardised terminology here. Aarch64 provides 
the "normal (cacheable)" definition. Memory which is mapped as "Normal 
Cacheable" is implicitly MTE capable when shared with a guest (because 
the stage 2 mappings don't allow restricting MTE other than mapping it 
as Device memory).

So MTE also forces us to have a definition of memory which is "bog 
standard memory"[1] separate from the mapping attributes. This is the 
main memory which fully supports MTE.

Separate from the "bog standard" we have the "special"[1] memory, e.g. 
ZONE_DEVICE memory may be mapped as "Normal Cacheable" at stage 1 but 
that memory may not support MTE tags. This memory can only be safely 
shared with a guest in the following situations:

  1. MTE is completely disabled for the guest

  2. The stage 2 mappings are 'device' (e.g. DEVICE_nGnRE)

  3. We have some guarantee that guest MTE access are in some way safe.

(1) is the situation today (without this patch series). But it prevents 
the guest from using MTE in any form.

(2) is pretty terrible for general memory, but is the get-out clause for 
mapping devices into the guest.

(3) isn't something we have any architectural way of discovering. We'd 
need to know what the device did with the MTE accesses (and any caches 
between the CPU and the device) to ensure there aren't any side-channels 
or h/w lockup issues. We'd also need some way of describing this memory 
to the guest.

So at least for the time being the approach is to avoid letting a guest 
with MTE enabled have access to this sort of memory.

[1] Neither "bog standard" nor "special" are real terms - like I said 
there's a lack of standardised terminology.

>>>> That's the problem. With Anshuman's commit I mentioned above,
>>>> pfn_valid() returns true for ZONE_DEVICE mappings (e.g. persistent
>>>> memory, not talking about some I/O mapping that requires Device_nGnRE).
>>>> So kvm_is_device_pfn() is false for such memory and it may be mapped as
>>>> Normal but it is not guaranteed to support tagging.
>>>
>>> pfn_valid() means "there is a struct page"; if you do pfn_to_page() and
>>> touch the page, you won't fault. So Anshuman's commit is correct.
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>>> pfn_to_online_page() means, "there is a struct page and it's system RAM
>>> that's in use; the memmap has a sane content"
>>
>> Does pfn_to_online_page() returns a valid struct page pointer for
>> ZONE_DEVICE pages? IIUC, these are not guaranteed to be system RAM, for
>> some definition of system RAM (I assume NVDIMM != system RAM). For
>> example, pmem_attach_disk() calls devm_memremap_pages() and this would
>> use the Normal Cacheable memory attribute without necessarily being
>> system RAM.
> 
> No, not for ZONE_DEVICE.
> 
> However, if you expose PMEM via dax/kmem as System RAM to the system (-> 
> add_memory_driver_managed()), then PMEM (managed via ZONE_NOMRAL or 
> ZONE_MOVABLE) would work with pfn_to_online_page() -- as the system 
> thinks it's "ordinary system RAM" and the memory is managed by the buddy.

So if I'm understanding this correctly for KVM we need to use 
pfn_to_online_pages() and reject if NULL is returned? In the case of 
dax/kmem there already needs to be validation that the memory supports 
MTE (otherwise we break user space) before it's allowed into the 
"ordinary system RAM" bucket.

Steve