[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2759b4bf-e1e3-d006-7d86-78a40348269d@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 15:20:13 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
"Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
"Kleen, Andi" <andi.kleen@...el.com>,
Liran Alon <liran.alon@...cle.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFCv2 15/16] KVM: Unmap protected pages from direct mapping
On 20.10.20 14:18, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 20.10.20 08:18, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>> If the protected memory feature enabled, unmap guest memory from
>> kernel's direct mappings.
>
> Gah, ugly. I guess this also defeats compaction, swapping, ... oh gosh.
> As if all of the encrypted VM implementations didn't bring us enough
> ugliness already (SEV extensions also don't support reboots, but can at
> least kexec() IIRC).
>
> Something similar is done with secretmem [1]. And people don't seem to
> like fragmenting the direct mapping (including me).
>
> [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200924132904.1391-1-rppt@kernel.org
>
I just thought "hey, we might have to replace pud/pmd mappings by page
tables when calling kernel_map_pages", this can fail with -ENOMEM, why
isn't there proper error handling.
Then I dived into __kernel_map_pages() which states:
"The return value is ignored as the calls cannot fail. Large pages for
identity mappings are not used at boot time and hence no memory
allocations during large page split."
I am probably missing something important, but how is calling
kernel_map_pages() safe *after* booting?! I know we use it for
debug_pagealloc(), but using it in a production-ready feature feels
completely irresponsible. What am I missing?
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists