Re: [PATCH v2 for-4.14] x86/vmx: use P2M_ALLOC in vmx_load_pdptrs instead of P2M_UNSHARE

[Tamas K Lengyel <tamas.k.lengyel@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 3:42 AM Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 08:30:08AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 17.06.2020 18:19, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> > > While forking VMs running a small RTOS system (Zephyr) a Xen crash has 
> > > been
> > > observed due to a mm-lock order violation while copying the HVM CPU 
> > > context
> > > from the parent. This issue has been identified to be due to
> > > hap_update_paging_modes first getting a lock on the gfn using get_gfn. 
> > > This
> > > call also creates a shared entry in the fork's memory map for the cr3 
> > > gfn. The
> > > function later calls hap_update_cr3 while holding the paging_lock, which
> > > results in the lock-order violation in vmx_load_pdptrs when it tries to 
> > > unshare
> > > the above entry when it grabs the page with the P2M_UNSHARE flag set.
> > >
> > > Since vmx_load_pdptrs only reads from the page its usage of P2M_UNSHARE 
> > > was
> > > unnecessary to start with. Using P2M_ALLOC is the appropriate flag to 
> > > ensure
> > > the p2m is properly populated and to avoid the lock-order violation we
> > > observed.
> >
> > Using P2M_ALLOC is not going to address the original problem though
> > afaict: You may hit the mem_sharing_fork_page() path that way, and
> > via nominate_page() => __grab_shared_page() => mem_sharing_page_lock()
> > you'd run into a lock order violation again.
>
> Well, I guess Tamas avoids this because of the get_gfn call in
> hap_update_paging_modes will have already populated the entry, so it's
> never going to hit the p2m_is_hole check in __get_gfn_type_access.
>
> > The change is an improvement, so I'd be fine with it going in this
> > way, but only as long as the description mentions that there's still
> > an open issue here (which may be non-trivial to address). Or perhaps
> > combining with your v1 change is the way to go (for now or even
> > permanently)?
>
> If vmx_load_pdptrs only requires P2M_ALLOC then this is already
> covered by the call to get_gfn performed in hap_update_paging_modes,
> so I don't think there's much point in merging with v1, as forcing
> hap_update_paging_modes to unshare the entry won't affect
> vmx_load_pdptrs anymore.
>
> I'm however worried about other code paths that can call into
> vmx_load_pdptrs with mm locks taken, and I agree it would be safer to
> assert that all the higher layers make sure the cr3 loaded is
> correctly populated for a query without P2M_ALLOC to succeed.

Using P2M_ALLOC is always safe if 1) the entry is already populated
like in this case but also in 2) in case the gfn is a hole and gets
forked. In mem_sharing the paging lock order is only applicable when
an already present entry is getting converted to a shared type or a
shared typed is getting unshared. It does not apply when a hole is
being plugged. So this is safe in other paths as well where the entry
is not yet present.

Tamas