linux-kernel - Re: [RFC Part2 PATCH 04/30] x86/mm: split the physmap when adding the page in RMP table

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: <20210419123226.GC9093@zn.tnic>
Date:   Mon, 19 Apr 2021 14:32:26 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, ak@...ux.intel.com,
        herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFC Part2 PATCH 04/30] x86/mm: split the physmap when adding
 the page in RMP table

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 12:04:10PM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote:
> A write from the hypervisor goes through the RMP checks. When the
> hypervisor writes to pages, hardware checks to ensures that the assigned
> bit in the RMP is zero (i.e page is shared). If the page table entry that
> gives the sPA indicates that the target page size is a large page, then
> all RMP entries for the 4KB constituting pages of the target must have the
> assigned bit 0.

Hmm, so this is important: I read this such that we can have a 2M
page table entry but the RMP table can contain 4K entries for the
corresponding 512 4K pages. Is that correct?

If so, then there's a certain discrepancy here and I'd expect that if
the page gets split/collapsed, depending on the result, the RMP table
should be updated too, so that it remains in sync.

For example:

* mm decides to group all 512 4K entries into a 2M entry, RMP table gets
updated in the end to reflect that

* mm decides to split a page, RMP table gets updated too, for the same
reason.

In this way, RMP table will be always in sync with the pagetables.

I know, I probably am missing something but that makes most sense to
me instead of noticing the discrepancy and getting to work then, when
handling the RMP violation.

Or?

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette