Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1 03/10] KVM: Prepare kvm_is_reserved_pfn() for PG_reserved changes

[Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 09:30:53PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>>I think I know what's going wrong:
> >>>
> >>>Pages that are pinned via gfn_to_pfn() and friends take a references,
> >>>however are often released via
> >>>kvm_release_pfn_clean()/kvm_release_pfn_dirty()/kvm_release_page_clean()...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>E.g., in arch/x86/kvm/x86.c:reexecute_instruction()
> >>>
> >>>...
> >>>pfn = gfn_to_pfn(vcpu->kvm, gpa_to_gfn(gpa));
> >>>...
> >>>kvm_release_pfn_clean(pfn);
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>void kvm_release_pfn_clean(kvm_pfn_t pfn)
> >>>{
> >>>   if (!is_error_noslot_pfn(pfn) && !kvm_is_reserved_pfn(pfn))
> >>>           put_page(pfn_to_page(pfn));
> >>>}
> >>>
> >>>This function makes perfect sense as the counterpart for kvm_get_pfn():
> >>>
> >>>void kvm_get_pfn(kvm_pfn_t pfn)
> >>>{
> >>>   if (!kvm_is_reserved_pfn(pfn))
> >>>           get_page(pfn_to_page(pfn));
> >>>}
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>As all ZONE_DEVICE pages are currently reserved, pages pinned via
> >>>gfn_to_pfn() and friends will often not see a put_page() AFAIKS.
> >
> >Assuming gup() takes a reference for ZONE_DEVICE pages, yes, this is a
> >KVM bug.
> 
> Yes, it does take a reference AFAIKs. E.g.,
> 
> mm/gup.c:gup_pte_range():
> ...
>               if (pte_devmap(pte)) {
>                       if (unlikely(flags & FOLL_LONGTERM))
>                               goto pte_unmap;
> 
>                       pgmap = get_dev_pagemap(pte_pfn(pte), pgmap);
>                       if (unlikely(!pgmap)) {
>                               undo_dev_pagemap(nr, nr_start, pages);
>                               goto pte_unmap;
>                       }
>               } else if (pte_special(pte))
>                       goto pte_unmap;
> 
>               VM_BUG_ON(!pfn_valid(pte_pfn(pte)));
>               page = pte_page(pte);
> 
>               head = try_get_compound_head(page, 1);
> 
> try_get_compound_head() will increment the reference count.

Doh, I looked right at that code and somehow didn't connect the dots.
Thanks!

> >>>Now, my patch does not change that, the result of
> >>>kvm_is_reserved_pfn(pfn) will be unchanged. A proper fix for that would
> >>>probably be
> >>>
> >>>a) To drop the reference to ZONE_DEVICE pages in gfn_to_pfn() and
> >>>friends, after you successfully pinned the pages. (not sure if that's
> >>>the right thing to do but you're the expert)
> >>>
> >>>b) To not use kvm_release_pfn_clean() and friends on pages that were
> >>>definitely pinned.
> >
> >This is already KVM's intent, i.e. the purpose of the PageReserved() check
> >is simply to avoid putting a non-existent reference.  The problem is that
> >KVM assumes pages with PG_reserved set are never pinned, which AFAICT was
> >true when the code was first added.
> >
> >>(talking to myself, sorry)
> >>
> >>Thinking again, dropping this patch from this series could effectively also
> >>fix that issue. E.g., kvm_release_pfn_clean() and friends would always do a
> >>put_page() if "pfn_valid() and !PageReserved()", so after patch 9 also on
> >>ZONDE_DEVICE pages.
> >
> >Yeah, this appears to be the correct fix.
> >
> >>But it would have side effects that might not be desired. E.g.,:
> >>
> >>1. kvm_pfn_to_page() would also return ZONE_DEVICE pages (might even be the
> >>right thing to do).
> >
> >This should be ok, at least on x86.  There are only three users of
> >kvm_pfn_to_page().  Two of those are on allocations that are controlled by
> >KVM and are guaranteed to be vanilla MAP_ANONYMOUS.  The third is on guest
> >memory when running a nested guest, and in that case supporting ZONE_DEVICE
> >memory is desirable, i.e. KVM should play nice with a guest that is backed
> >by ZONE_DEVICE memory.
> >
> >>2. kvm_set_pfn_dirty() would also set ZONE_DEVICE pages dirty (might be
> >>okay)
> >
> >This is ok from a KVM perspective.
> 
> What about
> 
> void kvm_get_pfn(kvm_pfn_t pfn)
> {
>       if (!kvm_is_reserved_pfn(pfn))
>               get_page(pfn_to_page(pfn));
> }
> 
> Is a pure get_page() sufficient in case of ZONE_DEVICE?
> (asking because of the live references obtained via
> get_dev_pagemap(pte_pfn(pte), pgmap) in mm/gup.c:gup_pte_range() somewhat
> confuse me :) )

This ties into my concern with thp_adjust().  On x86, kvm_get_pfn() is
only used in two flows, to manually get a ref for VM_IO/VM_PFNMAP pages
and to switch the ref when mapping a non-hugetlbfs compound page, i.e. a
THP.

I assume VM_IO and PFNMAP can't apply to ZONE_DEVICE pages.

In the thp_adjust() case, when a THP is encountered and the original PFN
is for a non-PG_head page, KVM transfers the reference to the associated
PG_head page[*] and maps the associated 2mb chunk/page.  This is where KVM
uses kvm_get_pfn() and could run afoul of the get_dev_pagemap() refcounts.


[*] Technically I don't think it's guaranteed to be a PG_head, e.g. if the
    THP is a 1gb page, as KVM currently only maps THP as 2mb pages.  But
    the idea is the same, transfer the refcount the PFN that's actually
    going into KVM's page tables.

> >
> >The scarier code (for me) is transparent_hugepage_adjust() and
> >kvm_mmu_zap_collapsible_spte(), as I don't at all understand the
> >interaction between THP and _PAGE_DEVMAP.
> 
> The x86 KVM MMU code is one of the ugliest code I know (sorry, but it had to
> be said :/ ). Luckily, this should be independent of the PG_reserved thingy
> AFAIKs.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel