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, 30 Jul 2021 13:26:59 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        qperret@google.com, dbrazdil@google.com,
        Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@codeaurora.org>,
        Shanker R Donthineni <sdonthineni@nvidia.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>,
        kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/16] KVM: arm64: Add MMIO checking infrastructure
Message-ID: <20210730122658.GG23589@willie-the-truck>
References: <20210715163159.1480168-1-maz@kernel.org>
 <20210715163159.1480168-5-maz@kernel.org>
 <20210727181107.GC19173@willie-the-truck>
 <8735ryep6d.wl-maz@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8735ryep6d.wl-maz@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 10:57:30AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 19:11:08 +0100,
> Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 05:31:47PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > +bool kvm_install_ioguard_page(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gpa_t ipa)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct kvm_mmu_memory_cache *memcache;
> > > +	struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot;
> > > +	int ret, idx;
> > > +
> > > +	if (!test_bit(KVM_ARCH_FLAG_MMIO_GUARD, &vcpu->kvm->arch.flags))
> > > +		return false;
> > > +
> > > +	/* Must be page-aligned */
> > > +	if (ipa & ~PAGE_MASK)
> > > +		return false;
> > > +
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * The page cannot be in a memslot. At some point, this will
> > > +	 * have to deal with device mappings though.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	idx = srcu_read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->srcu);
> > > +	memslot = gfn_to_memslot(vcpu->kvm, ipa >> PAGE_SHIFT);
> > > +	srcu_read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->srcu, idx);
> > 
> > What does this memslot check achieve? A new memslot could be added after
> > you've checked, no?
> 
> If you start allowing S2 annotations to coexist with potential memory
> mappings, you're in for trouble. The faulting logic will happily
> overwrite the annotation, and that's probably not what you want.

I don't disagree, but the check above appears to be racy.

> As for new (or moving) memslots, I guess they should be checked
> against existing annotations.

Something like that, but the devil is in the details as it will need to
synchronize with this check somehow.

Will