linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] mm: x86: Invoke hypercall when page encryption status is changed

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 14 May 2021 09:05:23 +0000
From:   Ashish Kalra <ashish.kalra@....com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, seanjc@...gle.com,
        tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
        joro@...tes.org, thomas.lendacky@....com, x86@...nel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        srutherford@...gle.com, venu.busireddy@...cle.com,
        brijesh.singh@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] mm: x86: Invoke hypercall when page encryption
 status is changed

Hello Boris, Paolo,

On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 10:03:18AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 14/05/21 09:33, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > Ok, so explain to me how this looks from the user standpoint: she starts
> > migrating the guest, it fails to lookup an address, there's nothing
> > saying where it failed but the guest crashed.
> > 
> > Do you think this is user-friendly?
> 
> Ok, so explain to me how this looks from the submitter standpoint: he reads
> your review of his patch, he acknowledges your point with "Yes, it makes
> sense to signal it with a WARN or so", and still is treated as shit.
> 
> Do you think this is friendly?
> 
> 

I absolutely agree with both of your point of view. But what's the
alternative ?

Ideally we should fail/stop migration even if a single guest page
encryption status cannot be notified and that should be the way to
proceed in this case, the guest kernel should notify the source
userspace VMM to block/stop migration in this case.

>From a practical side, i do see Qemu's migrate_add_blocker() interface
but that looks to be a static interface and also i don't think it will
force stop an ongoing migration, is there an existing mechanism
to inform userspace VMM from kernel about blocking/stopping migration ?

Thanks,
Ashish