linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 08/11] x86/tdx: Wire up KVM hypercalls

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f516ee8f-508d-79e8-55c0-54491fd6f8d6@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 12 Nov 2021 08:17:50 -0800
From:   Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        x86@...nel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, Deep Shah <sdeep@...are.com>,
        VMware Inc <pv-drivers@...are.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Peter H Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 08/11] x86/tdx: Wire up KVM hypercalls

+Isaku

Hi Isaku/Kirill,

On 11/5/21 1:59 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Why use a magic string?  There are already mechanisms for the host to announce
> itself to the guest, i.e. the guest shouldn't be attempting these hypercalls unless
> it knows it's running on KVM (or something that implements KVM's ABI, whatever
> that may be).
> 
> The only use case I can think of is to support multiple flavors of hypercalls in
> the VMM, e.g. to let KVM support both KVM and Hyper-V hypercalls when KVM is
> masquerading as Hyper-V, but this magic value alone isn't sufficient.
> 
> And if there is a future where KVM wants to support multiple sets of hypercalls,
> using the entire 64-bit GPR for a magic value is unnecessary and wasteful, e.g.
> it requires an overside MOV imm, reg.
> 
> Why not use a single high bit?  Actually, looking at KVM's set of hypercalls,
> the guest can literally pass @nr as is.  The GHCI defines all non-zero values as
> vendor owned, i.e. this needs to ensure only that @nr is non-zero.  For whatever
> reason, perhaps to avoid false positives if the guest forgets to fill the value,
> KVM's hypercalls start at '1'.
> 
> Regardless of what is stuffed into r10 for the TDVMCALL, if it's anything other
> than KVM's raw hypercall number, it absolutely must go into
> include/uapi/linux/kvm_para.h and it should be done as a standalone commit,
> because what you're proposing here is effectively committing KVM to supporting
> an ABI.  That is not remotely clear from the changelog.


Do you see any issues with using a single bit or just passing the @nr as
it is?

-- 
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux Kernel Developer