[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200825043959.GF15046@sjchrist-ice>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 21:39:59 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Pu Wen <puwen@...on.cn>,
Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...rosoft.com>,
Dirk Hohndel <dirkhh@...are.com>,
Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
Tony W Wang-oc <TonyWWang-oc@...oxin.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
Gordon Tetlow <gordon@...lows.org>,
David Kaplan <David.Kaplan@....com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: TDX #VE in SYSCALL gap (was: [RFD] x86: Curing the exception and
syscall trainwreck in hardware)
+Andy
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 02:52:01PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> And to help with coordination, here is something prepared (slightly)
> earlier.
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hWejnyDkjRRAW-JEsRjA5c9CKLOPc6VKJQsuvODlQEI/edit?usp=sharing
>
> This identifies the problems from software's perspective, along with
> proposing behaviour which ought to resolve the issues.
>
> It is still a work-in-progress. The #VE section still needs updating in
> light of the publication of the recent TDX spec.
For #VE on memory accesses in the SYSCALL gap (or NMI entry), is this
something we (Linux) as the guest kernel actually want to handle gracefully
(where gracefully means not panicking)? For TDX, a #VE in the SYSCALL gap
would require one of two things:
a) The guest kernel to not accept/validate the GPA->HPA mapping for the
relevant pages, e.g. code or scratch data.
b) The host VMM to remap the GPA (making the GPA->HPA pending again).
(a) is only possible if there's a fatal buggy guest kernel (or perhaps vBIOS).
(b) requires either a buggy or malicious host VMM.
I ask because, if the answer is "no, panic at will", then we shouldn't need
to burn an IST for TDX #VE. Exceptions won't morph to #VE and hitting an
instruction based #VE in the SYSCALL gap would be a CPU bug or a kernel bug.
Ditto for a #VE in NMI entry before it gets to a thread stack.
Am I missing anything?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists