[PATCH v3] arm/arm64: KVM: map MMIO regions at creation time

Ard Biesheuvel ard.biesheuvel at linaro.org
Fri Oct 10 08:00:23 PDT 2014


On 10 October 2014 14:59, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel at linaro.org> wrote:
> On 10 October 2014 12:52, Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall at linaro.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 03:30:38PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> There is really no point in faulting in memory regions page by page
>>> if they are not backed by demand paged system RAM but by a linear
>>> passthrough mapping of a host MMIO region. So instead, detect such
>>> regions at setup time and install the mappings for the backing all
>>> at once.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel at linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> I have omitted the other 5 patches of the series of which this was #6, as
>>> Christoffer had indicated they could be merged separately.
>>>
>>> Changes since v2:
>>> - moved the unmapping of moved/deleted regions to kvm_arch_flush_shadow_memslot
>>>   so it occurs before parts of the new regions may be mapped in
>>>   kvm_arch_prepare_memory_region
>>> - allow memory regions with holes
>>>
>>> Changes since v1:
>>> - move this logic to kvm_arch_prepare_memory_region() so it can be invoked
>>>   when moving memory regions as well as when creating memory regions
>>> - as we are reasoning about memory regions now instead of memslots, all data
>>>   is retrieved from the 'mem' argument which points to a struct
>>>   kvm_userspace_memory_region
>>> - minor tweaks to the logic flow
>>>
>>> My test case (UEFI under QEMU/KVM) still executes correctly with this patch,
>>> but more thorough testing with actual passthrough device regions is in order.
>>>
>>>  arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>>>  1 file changed, 61 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c
>>> index 37c1b35f90ad..53d511524bb5 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c
>>> @@ -1132,13 +1132,6 @@ void kvm_arch_commit_memory_region(struct kvm *kvm,
>>>                                  const struct kvm_memory_slot *old,
>>>                                  enum kvm_mr_change change)
>>>  {
>>> -     gpa_t gpa = old->base_gfn << PAGE_SHIFT;
>>> -     phys_addr_t size = old->npages << PAGE_SHIFT;
>>> -     if (change == KVM_MR_DELETE || change == KVM_MR_MOVE) {
>>> -             spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
>>> -             unmap_stage2_range(kvm, gpa, size);
>>> -             spin_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
>>> -     }
>>>  }
>>>
>>>  int kvm_arch_prepare_memory_region(struct kvm *kvm,
>>> @@ -1146,7 +1139,61 @@ int kvm_arch_prepare_memory_region(struct kvm *kvm,
>>>                                  struct kvm_userspace_memory_region *mem,
>>>                                  enum kvm_mr_change change)
>>>  {
>>> -     return 0;
>>> +     hva_t hva = mem->userspace_addr;
>>> +     hva_t reg_end = hva + mem->memory_size;
>>> +     int ret = 0;
>>> +
>>> +     if (change != KVM_MR_CREATE && change != KVM_MR_MOVE)
>>> +             return 0;
>>> +
>>> +     /*
>>> +      * A memory region could potentially cover multiple VMAs, and any holes
>>> +      * between them, so iterate over all of them to find out if we can map
>>> +      * any of them right now.
>>> +      *
>>> +      *     +--------------------------------------------+
>>> +      * +---------------+----------------+   +----------------+
>>> +      * |   : VMA 1     |      VMA 2     |   |    VMA 3  :    |
>>> +      * +---------------+----------------+   +----------------+
>>> +      *     |               memory region                |
>>> +      *     +--------------------------------------------+
>>> +      */
>>> +     do {
>>> +             struct vm_area_struct *vma = find_vma(current->mm, hva);
>>> +             hva_t vm_start, vm_end;
>>> +
>>> +             if (!vma || vma->vm_start >= reg_end)
>>> +                     break;
>>> +
>>> +             /*
>>> +              * Take the intersection of this VMA with the memory region
>>> +              */
>>> +             vm_start = max(hva, vma->vm_start);
>>> +             vm_end = min(reg_end, vma->vm_end);
>>> +
>>> +             if (vma->vm_flags & VM_PFNMAP) {
>>> +                     gpa_t gpa = mem->guest_phys_addr +
>>> +                                 (vm_start - mem->userspace_addr);
>>> +                     phys_addr_t pa = (vma->vm_pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT) +
>>> +                                      vm_start - vma->vm_start;
>>> +                     bool writable = vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE &&
>>> +                                     !(mem->flags & KVM_MEM_READONLY);
>>
>> If I read the code correctly, in the case where you have (!(vma->vm_flags
>> & VM_WRITE) && !(mem->falgs & KVM_MEM_READONLY)) you'll map as read-only
>> and we'll take a Stage-2 fault on a write, but because the memslot is
>> not marked as readonly, we'll just try to fault in the page writable,
>> which should fail because (vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE) == 0, so we'll
>> crash the VM here by returning -EFAULT to userspace.
>>
>> So I'm wondering if this shouldn't return an error at this point
>> instead?
>>
>
> I think you're right. Interestingly, it appears that read-only VMAs
> are rejected early by the x86 version due to its access_ok()
> implementation actually caring about the 'type' field.
> For ARM/arm64, however, the type is ignored and the additional check
> is in order, although it may be better to fix access_ok() at some
> point (assuming we agree it makes no sense for KVM on ARM/arm64 to be
> 'special' and allow something that generic KVM does not.)
>

Hmm, or maybe not. It seems the 'type' argument of access_ok() is
universally ignored, so please disregard my previous comment.

I will repost with the check added.

-- 
Ard.



>>> +
>>> +                     ret = kvm_phys_addr_ioremap(kvm, gpa, pa,
>>> +                                                 vm_end - vm_start,
>>> +                                                 writable);
>>> +                     if (ret)
>>> +                             break;
>>> +             }
>>> +             hva = vm_end;
>>> +     } while (hva < reg_end);
>>> +
>>> +     if (ret) {
>>> +             spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
>>> +             unmap_stage2_range(kvm, mem->guest_phys_addr, mem->memory_size);
>>> +             spin_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
>>> +     }
>>> +     return ret;
>>>  }
>>>
>>>  void kvm_arch_free_memslot(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *free,
>>> @@ -1171,4 +1218,10 @@ void kvm_arch_flush_shadow_all(struct kvm *kvm)
>>>  void kvm_arch_flush_shadow_memslot(struct kvm *kvm,
>>>                                  struct kvm_memory_slot *slot)
>>>  {
>>> +     gpa_t gpa = slot->base_gfn << PAGE_SHIFT;
>>> +     phys_addr_t size = slot->npages << PAGE_SHIFT;
>>> +
>>> +     spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
>>> +     unmap_stage2_range(kvm, gpa, size);
>>> +     spin_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
>>>  }
>>> --
>>> 1.8.3.2
>>>
>>
>> Otherwise, this looks good.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -Christoffer



More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list