On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 04:33:03PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Both kvm (in bd2fae8da794 ("KVM: do not assume PTE is writable after
> follow_pfn")) and vfio (in 07956b6269d3 ("vfio/type1: Use
> follow_pte()")) have lost their callsites of follow_pfn(). All the
> other ones have been switched over to unsafe_follow_pfn because they
> cannot be fixed without breaking userspace api.
>
> Argueably the vfio code is still racy, but that's kinda a bigger
> picture. But since it does leak the pte beyond where it drops the pt
> lock, without anything else like an mmu notifier guaranteeing
> coherence, the problem is at least clearly visible in the vfio code.
> So good enough with me.
>
> I've decided to keep the explanation that after dropping the pt lock
> you must have an mmu notifier if you keep using the pte somehow by
> adjusting it and moving it into the kerneldoc for the new follow_pte()
> function.
>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Cc: Jann Horn <[email protected]>
> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]>
> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <[email protected]>
> Cc: Cornelia Huck <[email protected]>
> Cc: Peter Xu <[email protected]>
> Cc: Alex Williamson <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <[email protected]>
> ---
> include/linux/mm.h | 2 --
> mm/memory.c | 26 +++++---------------------
> mm/nommu.c | 13 +------------
> 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
I think this is the right thing to do.
Alex is working on fixing VFIO and while kvm is still racy using
follow pte, I think they are working on it too?
Jason
