mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>
To: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
	Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
	Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
	Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 02/10] KVM: s390: Honor storage keys when accessing guest memory
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2022 10:06:53 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <dba4edf2-45f4-0fbf-27dd-5a689aaa66a4@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <16b309d4-4427-284f-3b8b-507e66a96863@linux.ibm.com>



Am 20.01.22 um 09:58 schrieb Janis Schoetterl-Glausch:
> On 1/20/22 09:50, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 20.01.22 um 09:11 schrieb Janis Schoetterl-Glausch:
>>> On 1/19/22 20:27, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>> Am 18.01.22 um 10:52 schrieb Janis Schoetterl-Glausch:
>>>>> Storage key checking had not been implemented for instructions emulated
>>>>> by KVM. Implement it by enhancing the functions used for guest access,
>>>>> in particular those making use of access_guest which has been renamed
>>>>> to access_guest_with_key.
>>>>> Accesses via access_guest_real should not be key checked.
>>>>>
>>>>> For actual accesses, key checking is done by __copy_from/to_user_with_key
>>>>> (which internally uses MVCOS/MVCP/MVCS).
>>>>> In cases where accessibility is checked without an actual access,
>>>>> this is performed by getting the storage key and checking
>>>>> if the access key matches.
>>>>> In both cases, if applicable, storage and fetch protection override
>>>>> are honored.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>     arch/s390/include/asm/ctl_reg.h |   2 +
>>>>>     arch/s390/include/asm/page.h    |   2 +
>>>>>     arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c         | 174 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>>>>     arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.h         |  78 ++++++++++++--
>>>>>     arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c       |  12 +--
>>>>>     arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c        |   4 +-
>>>>>     6 files changed, 241 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/ctl_reg.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/ctl_reg.h
>>>>> index 04dc65f8901d..c800199a376b 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/ctl_reg.h
>>>>> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/ctl_reg.h
>>>>> @@ -12,6 +12,8 @@
>>>>>       #define CR0_CLOCK_COMPARATOR_SIGN    BIT(63 - 10)
>>>>>     #define CR0_LOW_ADDRESS_PROTECTION    BIT(63 - 35)
>>>>> +#define CR0_FETCH_PROTECTION_OVERRIDE    BIT(63 - 38)
>>>>> +#define CR0_STORAGE_PROTECTION_OVERRIDE    BIT(63 - 39)
>>>>>     #define CR0_EMERGENCY_SIGNAL_SUBMASK    BIT(63 - 49)
>>>>>     #define CR0_EXTERNAL_CALL_SUBMASK    BIT(63 - 50)
>>>>>     #define CR0_CLOCK_COMPARATOR_SUBMASK    BIT(63 - 52)
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/page.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/page.h
>>>>> index d98d17a36c7b..cfc4d6fb2385 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/page.h
>>>>> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/page.h
>>>>> @@ -20,6 +20,8 @@
>>>>>     #define PAGE_SIZE    _PAGE_SIZE
>>>>>     #define PAGE_MASK    _PAGE_MASK
>>>>>     #define PAGE_DEFAULT_ACC    0
>>>>> +/* storage-protection override */
>>>>> +#define PAGE_SPO_ACC        9
>>>>>     #define PAGE_DEFAULT_KEY    (PAGE_DEFAULT_ACC << 4)
>>>>>       #define HPAGE_SHIFT    20
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c b/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c
>>>>> index 4460808c3b9a..92ab96d55504 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c
>>>>> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
>>>>>     #include <linux/mm_types.h>
>>>>>     #include <linux/err.h>
>>>>>     #include <linux/pgtable.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/bitfield.h>
>>>>>       #include <asm/gmap.h>
>>>>>     #include "kvm-s390.h"
>>>>> @@ -794,6 +795,79 @@ static int low_address_protection_enabled(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>>>>         return 1;
>>>>>     }
>>>>>     +static bool fetch_prot_override_applicable(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, enum gacc_mode mode,
>>>>> +                       union asce asce)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    psw_t *psw = &vcpu->arch.sie_block->gpsw;
>>>>> +    unsigned long override;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    if (mode == GACC_FETCH || mode == GACC_IFETCH) {
>>>>> +        /* check if fetch protection override enabled */
>>>>> +        override = vcpu->arch.sie_block->gcr[0];
>>>>> +        override &= CR0_FETCH_PROTECTION_OVERRIDE;
>>>>> +        /* not applicable if subject to DAT && private space */
>>>>> +        override = override && !(psw_bits(*psw).dat && asce.p);
>>>>> +        return override;
>>>>> +    }
>>>>> +    return false;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static bool fetch_prot_override_applies(unsigned long ga, unsigned int len)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    return ga < 2048 && ga + len <= 2048;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static bool storage_prot_override_applicable(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    /* check if storage protection override enabled */
>>>>> +    return vcpu->arch.sie_block->gcr[0] & CR0_STORAGE_PROTECTION_OVERRIDE;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static bool storage_prot_override_applies(char access_control)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    /* matches special storage protection override key (9) -> allow */
>>>>> +    return access_control == PAGE_SPO_ACC;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static int vcpu_check_access_key(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, char access_key,
>>>>> +                 enum gacc_mode mode, union asce asce, gpa_t gpa,
>>>>> +                 unsigned long ga, unsigned int len)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    unsigned char storage_key, access_control;
>>>>> +    unsigned long hva;
>>>>> +    int r;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    /* access key 0 matches any storage key -> allow */
>>>>> +    if (access_key == 0)
>>>>> +        return 0;
>>>>> +    /*
>>>>> +     * caller needs to ensure that gfn is accessible, so we can
>>>>> +     * assume that this cannot fail
>>>>> +     */
>>>>> +    hva = gfn_to_hva(vcpu->kvm, gpa_to_gfn(gpa));
>>>>> +    mmap_read_lock(current->mm);
>>>>> +    r = get_guest_storage_key(current->mm, hva, &storage_key);
>>>>> +    mmap_read_unlock(current->mm);
>>>>> +    if (r)
>>>>> +        return r;
>>>>> +    access_control = FIELD_GET(_PAGE_ACC_BITS, storage_key);
>>>>> +    /* access key matches storage key -> allow */
>>>>> +    if (access_control == access_key)
>>>>> +        return 0;
>>>>> +    if (mode == GACC_FETCH || mode == GACC_IFETCH) {
>>>>> +        /* mismatching keys, no fetch protection -> allowed */
>>>>> +        if (!(storage_key & _PAGE_FP_BIT))
>>>>> +            return 0;
>>>>> +        if (fetch_prot_override_applicable(vcpu, mode, asce))
>>>>> +            if (fetch_prot_override_applies(ga, len))
>>>>> +                return 0;
>>>>> +    }
>>>>> +    if (storage_prot_override_applicable(vcpu))
>>>>> +        if (storage_prot_override_applies(access_control))
>>>>> +            return 0;
>>>>> +    return PGM_PROTECTION;
>>>>> +}
>>>>
>>>> This function is just a pre-check (and early-exit) and we do an additional final check
>>>> in the MVCOS routing later on, correct? It might actually be faster to get rid of this
>>>
>>> No, this exists for those cases that do not do an actual access, that is MEMOPs with
>>> the check only flag, as well as the TEST PROTECTION emulation. access_guest_with_key
>>> passes key 0 so we take the early return. It's easy to miss so Janosch suggested a comment there.
>>
>> Dont we always call it in guest_range_to_gpas, which is also called for the memory access in
>> access_guest_with_key?
> @@ -904,16 +1018,37 @@ int access_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long ga, u8 ar, void *data,
>   		gpas = vmalloc(array_size(nr_pages, sizeof(unsigned long)));
>   	if (!gpas)
>   		return -ENOMEM;
> +	try_fetch_prot_override = fetch_prot_override_applicable(vcpu, mode, asce);
> +	try_storage_prot_override = storage_prot_override_applicable(vcpu);
>   	need_ipte_lock = psw_bits(*psw).dat && !asce.r;
>   	if (need_ipte_lock)
>   		ipte_lock(vcpu);
> -	rc = guest_range_to_gpas(vcpu, ga, ar, gpas, len, asce, mode);
> -	for (idx = 0; idx < nr_pages && !rc; idx++) {
> +	rc = guest_range_to_gpas(vcpu, ga, ar, gpas, len, asce, mode, 0);
> 
> Yes, but the key is 0 in that case, so we don't do any key checking.  ^

So yes, we need a comment :-)

  reply	other threads:[~2022-01-20  9:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-01-18  9:52 [RFC PATCH v1 00/10] KVM: s390: Do storage key checking Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18  9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 01/10] s390/uaccess: Add storage key checked access to user memory Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18 13:18   ` Janosch Frank
2022-01-18 15:37   ` Sven Schnelle
2022-01-18 15:52     ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-19  9:48   ` Heiko Carstens
2022-01-19 11:02     ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-19 13:20       ` Heiko Carstens
2022-01-20  8:34         ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-20 12:56           ` Heiko Carstens
2022-01-20 18:19             ` Heiko Carstens
2022-01-21  7:32               ` Christian Borntraeger
2022-01-21 11:04                 ` Heiko Carstens
2022-01-21 13:46                   ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-21 14:26                     ` Heiko Carstens
2022-01-24 10:38                       ` [RFC PATCH] uaccess: Add mechanism for " Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-24 17:41                         ` Heiko Carstens
2022-01-25 12:35                           ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-25 13:23                             ` Heiko Carstens
2022-01-18  9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 02/10] KVM: s390: Honor storage keys when accessing guest memory Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18 14:38   ` Janosch Frank
2022-01-20 10:27     ` Christian Borntraeger
2022-01-20 10:30       ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-19 19:27   ` Christian Borntraeger
2022-01-20  8:11     ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-20  8:50       ` Christian Borntraeger
2022-01-20  8:58         ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-20  9:06           ` Christian Borntraeger [this message]
2022-01-18  9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 03/10] KVM: s390: handle_tprot: Honor storage keys Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18  9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 04/10] KVM: s390: selftests: Test TEST PROTECTION emulation Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-20 15:40   ` Janosch Frank
2022-01-21 11:03     ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-21 12:28       ` Claudio Imbrenda
2022-01-21 13:50         ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18  9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 05/10] KVM: s390: Add optional storage key checking to MEMOP IOCTL Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18 11:51   ` Christian Borntraeger
2022-01-18  9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 06/10] KVM: s390: Add vm IOCTL for key checked guest absolute memory access Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-19 11:52   ` Thomas Huth
2022-01-19 12:46     ` Christian Borntraeger
2022-01-19 12:53       ` Thomas Huth
2022-01-19 13:17         ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-20 10:38   ` Thomas Huth
2022-01-20 11:20     ` Christian Borntraeger
2022-01-20 12:23     ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-25 12:00       ` Thomas Huth
2022-01-27 16:29         ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-27 17:34           ` Claudio Imbrenda
2022-01-18  9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 07/10] KVM: s390: Rename existing vcpu memop functions Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18  9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 08/10] KVM: s390: selftests: Test memops with storage keys Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18  9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 09/10] KVM: s390: Add capability for storage key extension of MEM_OP IOCTL Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18 15:12   ` Christian Borntraeger
2022-01-18  9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 10/10] KVM: s390: selftests: Make use of capability in MEM_OP test Janis Schoetterl-Glausch

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=dba4edf2-45f4-0fbf-27dd-5a689aaa66a4@linux.ibm.com \
    --to=borntraeger@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=frankja@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=imbrenda@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=scgl@linux.ibm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome