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 resend RFC 0/9] s390: fixes, cleanups and optimizations
 for page table walkers
To:     Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
        Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>,
        Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com>,
        Ulrich Weigand <Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com>
References: <20210909162248.14969-1-david@redhat.com>
 <YVL1iwSicgWg1qx+@osiris>
From:   Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <98061eff-f856-fc1d-9f04-a31ac5fcd790@de.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Sep 2021 13:06:26 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <YVL1iwSicgWg1qx+@osiris>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


Am 28.09.21 um 12:59 schrieb Heiko Carstens:
> On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 06:22:39PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> Resend because I missed ccing people on the actual patches ...
>>
>> RFC because the patches are essentially untested and I did not actually
>> try to trigger any of the things these patches are supposed to fix. It
>> merely matches my current understanding (and what other code does :) ). I
>> did compile-test as far as possible.
>>
>> After learning more about the wonderful world of page tables and their
>> interaction with the mmap_sem and VMAs, I spotted some issues in our
>> page table walkers that allow user space to trigger nasty behavior when
>> playing dirty tricks with munmap() or mmap() of hugetlb. While some issues
>> should be hard to trigger, others are fairly easy because we provide
>> conventient interfaces (e.g., KVM_S390_GET_SKEYS and KVM_S390_SET_SKEYS).
>>
>> Future work:
>> - Don't use get_locked_pte() when it's not required to actually allocate
>>    page tables -- similar to how storage keys are now handled. Examples are
>>    get_pgste() and __gmap_zap.
>> - Don't use get_locked_pte() and instead let page fault logic allocate page
>>    tables when we actually do need page tables -- also, similar to how
>>    storage keys are now handled. Examples are set_pgste_bits() and
>>    pgste_perform_essa().
>> - Maybe switch to mm/pagewalk.c to avoid custom page table walkers. For
>>    __gmap_zap() that's very easy.
>>
>> Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
>> Cc: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
>> Cc: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>
>> Cc: Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>
>> Cc: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
>> Cc: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>
>> Cc: Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com>
>> Cc: Ulrich Weigand <Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com>
> 
> For the whole series:
> Acked-by: Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>
> 
> Christian, given that this is mostly about KVM I'd assume this should
> go via the KVM tree. Patch 6 (pci_mmio) is already upstream.

Right, I think I will queue this even without testing for now.
Claudio, is patch 7 ok for you with the explanation from David?