linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] KVM: x86: guest MAXPHYADDR and C-bit fixes

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: <3b82ae79-a32d-a20f-e2d2-c3bf470555d7@amd.com>
Date:   Thu, 24 Jun 2021 17:19:10 -0500
From:   Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] KVM: x86: guest MAXPHYADDR and C-bit fixes

On 6/24/21 5:15 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> On 6/24/21 12:39 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/24/21 12:31 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's an explanation of the physical address reduction for bare-metal and
>>>>>> guest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With MSR 0xC001_0010[SMEE] = 0:
>>>>>>   No reduction in host or guest max physical address.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With MSR 0xC001_0010[SMEE] = 1:
>>>>>> - Reduction in the host is enumerated by CPUID 0x8000_001F_EBX[11:6],
>>>>>>   regardless of whether SME is enabled in the host or not. So, for example
>>>>>>   on EPYC generation 2 (Rome) you would see a reduction from 48 to 43.
>>>>>> - There is no reduction in physical address in a legacy guest (non-SEV
>>>>>>   guest), so the guest can use a 48-bit physical address
>>>>
>>>> So the behavior I'm seeing is either a CPU bug or user error.  Can you verify
>>>> the unexpected #PF behavior to make sure I'm not doing something stupid?
>>>
>>> Yeah, I saw that in patch #3. Let me see what I can find out. I could just
>>> be wrong on that myself - it wouldn't be the first time.
>>
>> From patch #3:
>>   SVM: KVM: CPU #PF @ rip = 0x409ca4, cr2 = 0xc0000000, pfec = 0xb
>>   KVM: guest PTE = 0x181023 @ GPA = 0x180000, level = 4
>>   KVM: guest PTE = 0x186023 @ GPA = 0x181000, level = 3
>>   KVM: guest PTE = 0x187023 @ GPA = 0x186000, level = 2
>>   KVM: guest PTE = 0xffffbffff003 @ GPA = 0x187000, level = 1
>>   SVM: KVM: GPA = 0x7fffbffff000
>>
>> I think you may be hitting a special HT region that is at the top 12GB of
>> the 48-bit memory range and is reserved, even for GPAs. Can you somehow
>> get the test to use an address below 0xfffd_0000_0000? That would show
>> that bit 47 is valid for the legacy guest while staying out of the HT region.
> 
> I can make that happen.
> 
> I assume "HT" is HyperTransport?

Yep.

Thanks,
Tom

>