On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 02:36:58PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
On 15/05/17 11:00, Christoffer Dall wrote:Yes, absolutely. I've already applied patch 1 so no need to include
Hi Suzuki,
So I don't think this change is wrong, but I wonder if it's sufficient.
For example, I can see that this function is called from
stage2_unmsp_vm
-> stage2_unmap_memslot
-> unmap_stage2_range
and
kvm_arch_flush_shadow_memslot
-> unmap_stage2_range
which never check if the pgd pointer is valid,
You are right. Those two callers do not check it. We could fix all of this by simply
moving the check to the beginning of the loop.
i.e, something like this :
@@ -295,6 +295,12 @@ static void unmap_stage2_range(struct kvm *kvm, phys_addr_t start, u64 size)
assert_spin_locked(&kvm->mmu_lock);
pgd = kvm->arch.pgd + stage2_pgd_index(addr);
do {
+ /*
+ * Make sure the page table is still active, as we could
+ * another thread could have possibly freed the page table.
+ */
+ if (!READ_ONCE(kvm->arch.pgd))
+ break;
next = stage2_pgd_addr_end(addr, end);
if (!stage2_pgd_none(*pgd))
unmap_stage2_puds(kvm, pgd, addr, next);
and finally, kvm_free_stage2_pgd also checks the pgd pointer outside of holding the
kvm->mmu_lock so why is this not racy?
This has been fixed by patch 1 in the series. So should be fine.
I can respin the patch with the changes if you are OK with it.
that in your respin.