linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM guest private memory

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: <949e6d95-266d-0234-3b86-6bd3c5267333@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 31 Aug 2021 21:12:44 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
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 list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        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 (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Varad Gautam <varad.gautam@...e.com>,
        Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@...e.com>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <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>,
        Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM guest private
 memory

On 28.08.21 00:28, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2021, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021, at 2:26 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 26.08.21 19:05, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>>>> Oof.  That's quite a requirement.  What's the point of the VMA once all
>>>> this is done?
>>>
>>> You can keep using things like mbind(), madvise(), ... and the GUP code
>>> with a special flag might mostly just do what you want. You won't have
>>> to reinvent too many wheels on the page fault logic side at least.
> 
> Ya, Kirill's RFC more or less proved a special GUP flag would indeed Just Work.
> However, the KVM page fault side of things would require only a handful of small
> changes to send private memslots down a different path.  Compared to the rest of
> the enabling, it's quite minor.
> 
> The counter to that is other KVM architectures would need to learn how to use the
> new APIs, though I suspect that there will be a fair bit of arch enabling regardless
> of what route we take.
> 
>> You can keep calling the functions.  The implementations working is a
>> different story: you can't just unmap (pte_numa-style or otherwise) a private
>> guest page to quiesce it, move it with memcpy(), and then fault it back in.
> 
> Ya, I brought this up in my earlier reply.  Even the initial implementation (without
> real NUMA support) would likely be painful, e.g. the KVM TDX RFC/PoC adds dedicated
> logic in KVM to handle the case where NUMA balancing zaps a _pinned_ page and then
> KVM fault in the same pfn.  It's not thaaat ugly, but it's arguably more invasive
> to KVM's page fault flows than a new fd-based private memslot scheme.

I might have a different mindset, but less code churn doesn't 
necessarily translate to "better approach".

I'm certainly not pushing for what I proposed (it's a rough, broken 
sketch). I'm much rather trying to come up with alternatives that try 
solving the same issue, handling the identified requirements.

I have a gut feeling that the list of requirements might not be complete 
yet. For example, I wonder if we have to protect against user space 
replacing private pages by shared pages or punishing random holes into 
the encrypted memory fd.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb