Date:   Tue, 31 Aug 2021 21:08:33 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        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, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Varad Gautam <varad.gautam@...e.com>,
        Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@...e.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM guest private
 memory

On 27.08.21 04:31, Yu Zhang wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 12:15:48PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 24.08.21 02:52, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>> The goal of this RFC is to try and align KVM, mm, and anyone else with skin in the
>>> game, on an acceptable direction for supporting guest private memory, e.g. for
>>> Intel's TDX.  The TDX architectural effectively allows KVM guests to crash the
>>> host if guest private memory is accessible to host userspace, and thus does not
>>> play nice with KVM's existing approach of pulling the pfn and mapping level from
>>> the host page tables.
>>>
>>> This is by no means a complete patch; it's a rough sketch of the KVM changes that
>>> would be needed.  The kernel side of things is completely omitted from the patch;
>>> the design concept is below.
>>>
>>> There's also fair bit of hand waving on implementation details that shouldn't
>>> fundamentally change the overall ABI, e.g. how the backing store will ensure
>>> there are no mappings when "converting" to guest private.
>>>
>>
>> This is a lot of complexity and rather advanced approaches (not saying they
>> are bad, just that we try to teach the whole stack something completely
>> new).
>>
>>
>> What I think would really help is a list of requirements, such that
>> everybody is aware of what we actually want to achieve. Let me start:
>>
>> GFN: Guest Frame Number
>> EPFN: Encrypted Physical Frame Number
>>
>>
>> 1) An EPFN must not get mapped into more than one VM: it belongs exactly to
>> one VM. It must neither be shared between VMs between processes nor between
>> VMs within a processes.
>>
>>
>> 2) User space (well, and actually the kernel) must never access an EPFN:
>>
>> - If we go for an fd, essentially all operations (read/write) have to
>>    fail.
>> - If we have to map an EPFN into user space page tables (e.g., to
>>    simplify KVM), we could only allow fake swap entries such that "there
>>    is something" but it cannot be  accessed and is flagged accordingly.
>> - /proc/kcore and friends have to be careful as well and should not read
>>    this memory. So there has to be a way to flag these pages.
>>
>> 3) We need a way to express the GFN<->EPFN mapping and essentially assign an
>> EPFN to a GFN.
>>
>>
>> 4) Once we assigned a EPFN to a GFN, that assignment must not longer change.
>> Further, an EPFN must not get assigned to multiple GFNs.
>>
>>
>> 5) There has to be a way to "replace" encrypted parts by "shared" parts
>>     and the other way around.
>>
>> What else?
> 
> Thanks a lot for this summary. A question about the requirement: do we or
> do we not have plan to support assigned device to the protected VM?

Good question, I assume that is stuff for the far far future.

> 
> If yes. The fd based solution may need change the VFIO interface as well(
> though the fake swap entry solution need mess with VFIO too). Because:
> 
> 1> KVM uses VFIO when assigning devices into a VM.
> 
> 2> Not knowing which GPA ranges may be used by the VM as DMA buffer, all
> guest pages will have to be mapped in host IOMMU page table to host pages,
> which are pinned during the whole life cycle fo the VM.
> 
> 3> IOMMU mapping is done during VM creation time by VFIO and IOMMU driver,
> in vfio_dma_do_map().
> 
> 4> However, vfio_dma_do_map() needs the HVA to perform a GUP to get the HPA
> and pin the page.
> 
> But if we are using fd based solution, not every GPA can have a HVA, thus
> the current VFIO interface to map and pin the GPA(IOVA) wont work. And I
> doubt if VFIO can be modified to support this easily.

I fully agree. Maybe Intel folks have some idea how that's supposed to 
look like in the future.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb

Powered by blists - more mailing lists