linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 5/5] x86/kvm: Avoid dynamic allocation of pvclock data when SEV is active

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180906194710.GA16605@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:47:10 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
To:     Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/5] x86/kvm: Avoid dynamic allocation of pvclock data
 when SEV is active

On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 02:24:32PM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote:
> 
> 
> On 09/06/2018 01:47 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> >On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 01:37:50PM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>On 09/06/2018 09:18 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> >>....
> >>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>So are we going to be defining a decrypted section for every piece of
> >>>>>machinery now?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>That's a bit too much in my book.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Why can't you simply free everything in .data..decrypted on !SVE guests?
> >>>>
> >>>>That would prevent adding __decrypted to existing declarations, e.g.
> >>>>hv_clock_boot, which would be ugly in its own right.  A more generic
> >>>>solution would be to add something like __decrypted_exclusive to mark
> >>>>data that is used if and only if SEV is active, and then free the
> >>>>SEV-only data when SEV is disabled.
> >>>
> >>>Oh, and we'd need to make sure __decrypted_exclusive is freed when
> >>>!CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT, and preferably !sev_active() since the big
> >>>array is used only if SEV is active.  This patch unconditionally
> >>>defines hv_clock_dec but only frees it if CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT=y &&
> >>>!mem_encrypt_active().
> >>>
> >>
> >>Again we have to consider the bare metal scenario while doing this. The
> >>aux array you proposed will be added in decrypted section only when
> >>CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT=y.  If CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT=n then nothng
> >>gets put in .data.decrypted section. At the runtime, if memory
> >>encryption is active then .data.decrypted_hvclock will contains useful
> >>data.
> >>
> >>The __decrypted attribute in "" when CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT=n.
> >
> >Right, but won't the data get dumped into the regular .bss in that
> >case, i.e. needs to be freed?
> >
> 
> 
> Yes, the auxiliary array will dumped into the regular .bss when
> CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT=n. Typically it will be few k, I am not
> sure if its worth complicating the code to save those extra memory.
> Most of the distro's have CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT=y anyways.

I just realized that we'll try to create a bogus array if 'NR_CPUS <=
HVC_BOOT_ARRAY_SIZE'.  A bit ugly, but we could #ifdef away both that
and CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT=n in a single shot, e.g.:

#if defined(CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT) && NR_CPUS > HVC_BOOT_ARRAY_SIZE
#define HVC_AUX_ARRAY_SIZE  \
	PAGE_ALIGN((NR_CPUS - HVC_BOOT_ARRAY_SIZE) * \
		   sizeof(struct pvclock_vsyscall_time_info))
static struct pvclock_vsyscall_time_info
	hv_clock_aux[HVC_AUX_ARRAY_SIZE] __decrypted __aligned(PAGE_SIZE);
#endif