| Message ID | 20190514122456.28559-17-julien.grall@arm.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | xen/arm: Clean-up & fixes in boot/mm code | expand |
On 14.05.19 15:24, Julien Grall wrote: > The function create_xen_entries() may be called concurrently. For > instance, while the vmap allocation is protected by a spinlock, the > mapping is not. > > The implementation create_xen_entries() contains quite a few TOCTOU > races such as when allocating the 3rd-level page-tables. > > Thankfully, they are pretty hard to reach as page-tables are allocated > once and never released. Yet it is possible, so we need to protect with > a spinlock to avoid corrupting the page-tables. > > Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com> > > --- > Changes in v2: > - Rework the commit message > --- Reviewed-by: Andrii Anisov <andrii_anisov@epam.com>
On Tue, 14 May 2019, Julien Grall wrote: > The function create_xen_entries() may be called concurrently. For > instance, while the vmap allocation is protected by a spinlock, the > mapping is not. Do you have an example of potential concurrent calls of create_xen_entries() which doesn't involve concurrent vmaps (because vmaps are already protected by their spinlock)? vmap + something_else for instance? > The implementation create_xen_entries() contains quite a few TOCTOU > races such as when allocating the 3rd-level page-tables. > > Thankfully, they are pretty hard to reach as page-tables are allocated > once and never released. Yet it is possible, so we need to protect with > a spinlock to avoid corrupting the page-tables. > > Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com> > > --- > Changes in v2: > - Rework the commit message > --- > xen/arch/arm/mm.c | 6 ++++++ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/mm.c b/xen/arch/arm/mm.c > index 9a5f2e1c3f..7502a14760 100644 > --- a/xen/arch/arm/mm.c > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/mm.c > @@ -974,6 +974,8 @@ enum xenmap_operation { > RESERVE > }; > > +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(xen_pt_lock); > + > static int create_xen_entries(enum xenmap_operation op, > unsigned long virt, > mfn_t mfn, > @@ -985,6 +987,8 @@ static int create_xen_entries(enum xenmap_operation op, > lpae_t pte, *entry; > lpae_t *third = NULL; > > + spin_lock(&xen_pt_lock); > + > for(; addr < addr_end; addr += PAGE_SIZE, mfn = mfn_add(mfn, 1)) > { > entry = &xen_second[second_linear_offset(addr)]; > @@ -1059,6 +1063,8 @@ out: > */ > flush_xen_tlb_range_va(virt, PAGE_SIZE * nr_mfns); > > + spin_unlock(&xen_pt_lock); > + > return rc; > } > > -- > 2.11.0 >
Hi Stefano, On 05/06/2019 00:11, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Tue, 14 May 2019, Julien Grall wrote: >> The function create_xen_entries() may be called concurrently. For >> instance, while the vmap allocation is protected by a spinlock, the >> mapping is not. > > Do you have an example of potential concurrent calls of > create_xen_entries() which doesn't involve concurrent vmaps (because > vmaps are already protected by their spinlock)? vmap + something_else > for instance? Well, I gave an example here. The vmap allocation (i.e vm_alloc) is protected by a spinlock. However, when the mapping is done there are no spinlock to protected against concurrent one. So the following scenario could happen: CPU0 | CPU1 | vmap() | vmap() vm_alloc() | vm_alloc() spin_lock() | ... | spin_unlock() | | spin_lock() * interrupt * | ... | spin_unlock() | map_pages_to_xen() | map_pages_to_xen() entry = &xen_second[X] | entry = &xen_second[Y] * entry invalid * | * entry invalid * create_xen_table() | create_xen_table() Assuming X == Y (i.e we the xen second entry is the same), then one will win the race and therefore one mapping will be inexistent. But as I wrote, the chance it is happening is very limited. I can add that in the commit message. Cheers,
On Wed, 5 Jun 2019, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi Stefano, > > On 05/06/2019 00:11, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > On Tue, 14 May 2019, Julien Grall wrote: > > > The function create_xen_entries() may be called concurrently. For > > > instance, while the vmap allocation is protected by a spinlock, the > > > mapping is not. > > > > Do you have an example of potential concurrent calls of > > create_xen_entries() which doesn't involve concurrent vmaps (because > > vmaps are already protected by their spinlock)? vmap + something_else > > for instance? > Well, I gave an example here. The vmap allocation (i.e vm_alloc) is protected > by a spinlock. However, when the mapping is done there are no spinlock to > protected against concurrent one. > > So the following scenario could happen: > > CPU0 | CPU1 > | > vmap() | vmap() > vm_alloc() | vm_alloc() > spin_lock() | > ... | > spin_unlock() | > | spin_lock() > * interrupt * | ... > | spin_unlock() > | > map_pages_to_xen() | map_pages_to_xen() > entry = &xen_second[X] | entry = &xen_second[Y] > * entry invalid * | * entry invalid * > create_xen_table() | create_xen_table() > > > Assuming X == Y (i.e we the xen second entry is the same), then one will win > the race and therefore one mapping will be inexistent. > > But as I wrote, the chance it is happening is very limited. > > I can add that in the commit message. Thanks for the detailed explanation, I am just trying to understand and double-check the race. Wouldn't vm_alloc guarantee to return a different va in the two cases (CPU0 and CPU1 above), given that the selection of the va is done under spin_lock? But it would be still possible to have X and Y so that they select the same &xen_second entry, hence, the race with create_xen_table(). It looks like the race is there. Reviewed-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>
Hi Stefano, On 08/06/2019 01:17, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Wed, 5 Jun 2019, Julien Grall wrote: >> On 05/06/2019 00:11, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>> On Tue, 14 May 2019, Julien Grall wrote: >>>> The function create_xen_entries() may be called concurrently. For >>>> instance, while the vmap allocation is protected by a spinlock, the >>>> mapping is not. >>> >>> Do you have an example of potential concurrent calls of >>> create_xen_entries() which doesn't involve concurrent vmaps (because >>> vmaps are already protected by their spinlock)? vmap + something_else >>> for instance? >> Well, I gave an example here. The vmap allocation (i.e vm_alloc) is protected >> by a spinlock. However, when the mapping is done there are no spinlock to >> protected against concurrent one. >> >> So the following scenario could happen: >> >> CPU0 | CPU1 >> | >> vmap() | vmap() >> vm_alloc() | vm_alloc() >> spin_lock() | >> ... | >> spin_unlock() | >> | spin_lock() >> * interrupt * | ... >> | spin_unlock() >> | >> map_pages_to_xen() | map_pages_to_xen() >> entry = &xen_second[X] | entry = &xen_second[Y] >> * entry invalid * | * entry invalid * >> create_xen_table() | create_xen_table() >> >> >> Assuming X == Y (i.e we the xen second entry is the same), then one will win >> the race and therefore one mapping will be inexistent. >> >> But as I wrote, the chance it is happening is very limited. >> >> I can add that in the commit message. > > Thanks for the detailed explanation, I am just trying to understand and > double-check the race. Wouldn't vm_alloc guarantee to return a different > va in the two cases (CPU0 and CPU1 above), given that the selection of > the va is done under spin_lock? Yes vm_alloc() would guarantee you to have a different VA. > But it would be still possible to have X > and Y so that they select the same &xen_second entry, hence, the race > with create_xen_table(). It looks like the race is there. That's correct. > > Reviewed-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org> Thank you! Cheers,
diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/mm.c b/xen/arch/arm/mm.c index 9a5f2e1c3f..7502a14760 100644 --- a/xen/arch/arm/mm.c +++ b/xen/arch/arm/mm.c @@ -974,6 +974,8 @@ enum xenmap_operation { RESERVE }; +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(xen_pt_lock); + static int create_xen_entries(enum xenmap_operation op, unsigned long virt, mfn_t mfn, @@ -985,6 +987,8 @@ static int create_xen_entries(enum xenmap_operation op, lpae_t pte, *entry; lpae_t *third = NULL; + spin_lock(&xen_pt_lock); + for(; addr < addr_end; addr += PAGE_SIZE, mfn = mfn_add(mfn, 1)) { entry = &xen_second[second_linear_offset(addr)]; @@ -1059,6 +1063,8 @@ out: */ flush_xen_tlb_range_va(virt, PAGE_SIZE * nr_mfns); + spin_unlock(&xen_pt_lock); + return rc; }
The function create_xen_entries() may be called concurrently. For instance, while the vmap allocation is protected by a spinlock, the mapping is not. The implementation create_xen_entries() contains quite a few TOCTOU races such as when allocating the 3rd-level page-tables. Thankfully, they are pretty hard to reach as page-tables are allocated once and never released. Yet it is possible, so we need to protect with a spinlock to avoid corrupting the page-tables. Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com> --- Changes in v2: - Rework the commit message --- xen/arch/arm/mm.c | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)