Re: [RFCv2 14/16] KVM: Handle protected memory in __kvm_map_gfn()/__kvm_unmap_gfn()

[Kirill A. Shutemov]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 04:59:49PM +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-10-22 at 15:06 +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > I think the page could have got unmapped since the gup via the
> > > hypercall on another CPU. It could be an avenue for the guest to
> > > crash
> > > the host.
> > 
> > Hm.. I'm not sure I follow. Could you elaborate on what scenario you
> > have
> > in mind?
> 
> Kind of similar scenario as the userspace triggered oops. My
> understanding is that the protected status was gathered along with the
> gup, but after the mm gets unlocked, nothing stops the page
> transitioning to unmapped(?). At which point kmap() from a previous gup
> with !protected, would go down the regular kmap() route and return an
> address to an unmapped page.
> 
> So the guest kernel could start with a page mapped as shared via the
> hypercall. Then trigger one of the PV MSR's that kmap() on CPU0. On
> CPU1, after the gup on CPU0, it could transitioned the page to
> private/unmapped via the hypercall. So the hva_to_pfn() would find
> !protected, but by the time the kmap() happened the page would have
> been unmapped. Am I missing something?

We need to fail protection enabling if a page is pinned. That's the only
option I see. But it might be pain to debug.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov