[RFC PATCH V2 5/5] vhost: access vq metadata through kernel virtual address

Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-03-08T12:56:04Z

On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 04:58:44PM +0800, Jason Wang
wrote:
>
> On 2019/3/8 ??3:17, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 12:56:45PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 10:47:22AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin
wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 02:18:12AM -0500, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > +static const struct mmu_notifier_ops
vhost_mmu_notifier_ops = {
> > > > > +	.invalidate_range = vhost_invalidate_range,
> > > > > +};
> > > > > +
> > > > >   void vhost_dev_init(struct vhost_dev *dev,
> > > > >   		    struct vhost_virtqueue **vqs, int nvqs, int
iov_limit)
> > > > >   {
> > > > I also wonder here: when page is write protected then
> > > > it does not look like .invalidate_range is invoked.
> > > >
> > > > E.g. mm/ksm.c calls
> > > >
> > > > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start and
> > > > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end but not
mmu_notifier_invalidate_range.
> > > >
> > > > Similarly, rmap in page_mkclean_one will not call
> > > > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range.
> > > >
> > > > If I'm right vhost won't get notified when page is
write-protected since you
> > > > didn't install start/end notifiers. Note that end
notifier can be called
> > > > with page locked, so it's not as straight-forward as
just adding a call.
> > > > Writing into a write-protected page isn't a good idea.
> > > >
> > > > Note that documentation says:
> > > > 	it is fine to delay the mmu_notifier_invalidate_range
> > > > 	call to mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end() outside the
page table lock.
> > > > implying it's called just later.
> > > OK I missed the fact that _end actually calls
> > > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range internally. So that part is fine
but the
> > > fact that you are trying to take page lock under VQ mutex and
take same
> > > mutex within notifier probably means it's broken for ksm and
rmap at
> > > least since these call invalidate with lock taken.
> > >
> > > And generally, Andrea told me offline one can not take mutex
under
> > > the notifier callback. I CC'd Andrea for why.
> > Correct, you _can not_ take mutex or any sleeping lock from within the
> > invalidate_range callback as those callback happens under the page
table
> > spinlock. You can however do so under the invalidate_range_start call-
> > back only if it is a blocking allow callback (there is a flag passdown
> > with the invalidate_range_start callback if you are not allow to block
> > then return EBUSY and the invalidation will be aborted).
> >
> >
> > > That's a separate issue from set_page_dirty when memory is
file backed.
> > If you can access file back page then i suggest using set_page_dirty
> > from within a special version of vunmap() so that when you vunmap you
> > set the page dirty without taking page lock. It is safe to do so
> > always from within an mmu notifier callback if you had the page map
> > with write permission which means that the page had write permission
> > in the userspace pte too and thus it having dirty pte is expected
> > and calling set_page_dirty on the page is allowed without any lock.
> > Locking will happen once the userspace pte are tear down through the
> > page table lock.
>
>
> Can I simply can set_page_dirty() before vunmap() in the mmu notifier
> callback, or is there any reason that it must be called within vumap()?
>
> Thanks


I think this is what Jerome is saying, yes.
Maybe add a patch to mmu notifier doc file, documenting this?


>
> >
> > > It's because of all these issues that I preferred just
accessing
> > > userspace memory and handling faults. Unfortunately there does
not
> > > appear to exist an API that whitelists a specific driver along
the lines
> > > of "I checked this code for speculative info leaks,
don't add barriers
> > > on data path please".
> > Maybe it would be better to explore adding such helper then remapping
> > page into kernel address space ?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > J?r?me