[PATCH v5 0/8] KVM: arm64: permit MAP_SHARED mappings with MTE enabled

[Peter Collingbourne]

On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 9:23 AM Marc Zyngier <maz at kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2022 01:10:33 +0000,
> Peter Collingbourne <pcc at google.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > This patch series allows VMMs to use shared mappings in MTE enabled
> > guests. The first five patches were taken from Catalin's tree [1] which
> > addressed some review feedback from when they were previously sent out
> > as v3 of this series. The first patch from Catalin's tree makes room
> > for an additional PG_arch_3 flag by making the newer PG_arch_* flags
> > arch-dependent. The next four patches are based on a series that
> > Catalin sent out prior to v3, whose cover letter [2] I quote from below:
> >
> > > This series aims to fix the races between initialising the tags on a
> > > page and setting the PG_mte_tagged flag. Currently the flag is set
> > > either before or after that tag initialisation and this can lead to CoW
> > > copying stale tags. The first patch moves the flag setting after the
> > > tags have been initialised, solving the CoW issue. However, concurrent
> > > mprotect() on a shared mapping may (very rarely) lead to valid tags
> > > being zeroed.
> > >
> > > The second skips the sanitise_mte_tags() call in kvm_set_spte_gfn(),
> > > deferring it to user_mem_abort(). The outcome is that no
> > > sanitise_mte_tags() can be simplified to skip the pfn_to_online_page()
> > > check and only rely on VM_MTE_ALLOWED vma flag that can be checked in
> > > user_mem_abort().
> > >
> > > The third and fourth patches use PG_arch_3 as a lock for page tagging,
> > > based on Peter Collingbourne's idea of a two-bit lock.
> > >
> > > I think the first patch can be queued but the rest needs some in depth
> > > review and test. With this series (if correct) we could allos MAP_SHARED
> > > on KVM guest memory but this is to be discussed separately as there are
> > > some KVM ABI implications.
> >
> > In this v5 I rebased Catalin's tree onto -next again. Please double check
>
> Please don't do use -next as a base. In-flight series should be based
> on a *stable* tag, either 6.0 or one of the early -RCs. If there is a
> known conflict with -next, do mention it in the cover letter and
> provide a resolution.

Okay, I will keep that in mind.

> > my rebase, which resolved the conflict with commit a8e5e5146ad0 ("arm64:
> > mte: Avoid setting PG_mte_tagged if no tags cleared or restored").
>
> This commit seems part of -rc1, so I guess the patches directly apply
> on top of that tag?

Yes, sorry, this also applies cleanly to -rc1.

> > I now have Reviewed-by for all patches except for the last one, which adds
> > the documentation. Thanks for the reviews so far, and please take a look!
>
> I'd really like the MM folks (list now cc'd) to look at the relevant
> patches (1 and 5) and ack them before I take this.

Okay, here are the lore links for the convenience of the MM folks:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221104011041.290951-2-pcc@google.com/
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221104011041.290951-6-pcc@google.com/

Peter