Re: [RFC][Patch v8 4/7] KVM: Disabling page poisoning to prevent corruption

From: Michael S. Tsirkin
Date: Thu Feb 07 2019 - 14:15:00 EST


On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 10:24:20AM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 9:56 AM Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2/7/19 12:23 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 2:11 PM Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> This patch disables page poisoning if guest page hinting is enabled.
> > >> It is required to avoid possible guest memory corruption errors.
> > >> Page Poisoning is a feature in which the page is filled with a specific
> > >> pattern of (0x00 or 0xaa) after arch_free_page and the same is verified
> > >> before arch_alloc_page to prevent following issues:
> > >> *information leak from the freed data
> > >> *use after free bugs
> > >> *memory corruption
> > >> Selection of the pattern depends on the CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING_ZERO
> > >> Once the guest pages which are supposed to be freed are sent to the
> > >> hypervisor it frees them. After freeing the pages in the global list
> > >> following things may happen:
> > >> *Hypervisor reallocates the freed memory back to the guest
> > >> *Hypervisor frees the memory and maps a different physical memory
> > >> In order to prevent any information leak hypervisor before allocating
> > >> memory to the guest fills it with zeroes.
> > >> The issue arises when the pattern used for Page Poisoning is 0xaa while
> > >> the newly allocated page received from the hypervisor by the guest is
> > >> filled with the pattern 0x00. This will result in memory corruption errors.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > This seems kind of backwards to me. Why disable page poisoning instead
> > > of just not hinting about the free pages? There shouldn't be that many
> > > instances when page poisoning is enabled, and when it is it would make
> > > more sense to leave it enabled rather than silently disable it.
> > As I have mentioned in the cover email, I intend to reuse Wei's already
> > merged work.
> >
> > This will enable the guest to communicate the poison value which is in
> > use to the host.
>
> That is far from being reliable given that you are having to buffer
> the pages for some period of time. I really think it would be better
> to just allow page poisoning to function and when you can support
> applying poison to a newly allocated page then you could look at
> re-enabling it.
>
> What I am getting at is that those that care about poisoning won't
> likely care about performance and I would lump the memory hinting in
> with other performance features.

It's not just a performance issue.

There is an issue is with the host/guest API. Once host discards pages it
currently always gives you back zero-filled pages.
So guest that looks for the poison using e.g. unpoison_page
will crash unless the poison value is 0.

Idea behind current code is just to let host know:
it can either be more careful with these pages,
or skip them completely.


--
MST