linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] KVM: Support guest MAXPHYADDR

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: <08594d32-9be2-b4d6-1dac-a335e8bda9f7@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Jun 2020 17:23:48 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Mohammed Gamal <mgamal@...hat.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vkuznets@...hat.com,
        sean.j.christopherson@...el.com, wanpengli@...cent.com,
        jmattson@...gle.com, joro@...tes.org, babu.moger@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] KVM: Support guest MAXPHYADDR < host MAXPHYADDR

On 22/06/20 17:08, Mohammed Gamal wrote:
>> Also, something to consider. On AMD, when memory encryption is 
>> enabled (via the SYS_CFG MSR), a guest can actually have a larger
>> MAXPHYADDR than the host. How do these patches all play into that?

As long as the NPT page tables handle the guest MAXPHYADDR just fine,
there's no need to do anything.  I think that's the case?

Paolo

> Well the patches definitely don't address that case. It's assumed a
> guest VM's MAXPHYADDR <= host MAXPHYADDR, and hence we handle the case
> where a guests's physical address space is smaller and try to trap
> faults that may go unnoticed by the host.
> 
> My question is in the case of guest MAXPHYADDR > host MAXPHYADDR, do we
> expect somehow that there might be guest physical addresses that
> contain what the host could see as reserved bits? And how'd the host
> handle that?