linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: VMX: Make smaller physical guest address space support user-configurable

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]

Date:   Thu, 3 Sep 2020 20:03:27 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Mohammed Gamal <mgamal@...hat.com>
Cc:     kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: VMX: Make smaller physical guest address space
 support user-configurable

On 03/09/20 19:57, Jim Mattson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 7:12 AM Mohammed Gamal <mgamal@...hat.com> wrote:
>> This patch exposes allow_smaller_maxphyaddr to the user as a module parameter.
>>
>> Since smaller physical address spaces are only supported on VMX, the parameter
>> is only exposed in the kvm_intel module.
>> Modifications to VMX page fault and EPT violation handling will depend on whether
>> that parameter is enabled.
>>
>> Also disable support by default, and let the user decide if they want to enable
>> it.
>
> I think a smaller guest physical address width *should* be allowed.
> However, perhaps the pedantic adherence to the architectural
> specification could be turned on or off per-VM? And, if we're going to
> be pedantic, I think we should go all the way and get MOV-to-CR3
> correct.

That would be way too slow.  Even the current trapping of present #PF
can introduce some slowdown depending on the workload.

> Does the typical guest care about whether or not setting any of the
> bits 51:46 in a PFN results in a fault?

At least KVM with shadow pages does, which is a bit niche but it shows
that you cannot really rely on no one doing it.  As you guessed, the
main usage of the feature is for machines with 5-level page tables where
there are no reserved bits; emulating smaller MAXPHYADDR allows
migrating VMs from 4-level page-table hosts.

Enabling per-VM would not be particularly useful IMO because if you want
to disable this code you can just set host MAXPHYADDR = guest
MAXPHYADDR, which should be the common case unless you want to do that
kind of Skylake to Icelake (or similar) migration.

Paolo