linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] kvm,x86: Exit to user space in case page fault error

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: <20201006162406.GE5306@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 6 Oct 2020 12:24:06 -0400
From:   Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        virtio-fs-list <virtio-fs@...hat.com>, pbonzini@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] kvm,x86: Exit to user space in case page fault error

On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 09:12:00AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 05:24:54PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> > Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> writes:
> > > So you will have to report token (along with -EFAULT) to user space. So this
> > > is basically the 3rd proposal which is extension of kvm API and will
> > > report say HVA/GFN also to user space along with -EFAULT.
> > 
> > Right, I meant to say that guest kernel has full register state of the
> > userspace process which caused APF to get queued and instead of trying
> > to extract it in KVM and pass to userspace in case of a (later) failure
> > we limit KVM api change to contain token or GFN only and somehow keep
> > the rest in the guest. This should help with TDX/SEV-ES.
> 
> Whatever gets reported to userspace should be identical with and without
> async page faults, i.e. it definitely shouldn't have token information.
> 
> Note, TDX doesn't allow injection exceptions, so reflecting a #PF back
> into the guest is not an option.  Nor do I think that's "correct"
> behavior (see everyone's objections to using #PF for APF fixed).  I.e. the
> event should probably be an IRQ.

I am not sure if IRQ for "Page not Present" works. Will it have some
conflicts/issues with other high priority interrupts which can
get injected before "Page not present".

Vivek