[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAA03e5GEkpit7ipvm-di-aQ49Wv+YDT2CFj5SzBTjcEa2F3n2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 13:40:43 -0800
From: Marc Orr <marcorr@...gle.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>,
Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
Tom Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Sergio Lopez <slp@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Dov Murik <dovmurik@...ux.ibm.com>,
Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum <tobin@....com>,
Michael Roth <Michael.Roth@....com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, tony.luck@...el.com,
sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH Part2 v5 00/45] Add AMD Secure Nested Paging (SEV-SNP)
Hypervisor Support
On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 1:38 PM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/12/21 1:30 PM, Marc Orr wrote:
> > In this proposal, consider a guest driver instructing a device to DMA
> > write a 1 GB memory buffer. A well-behaved guest driver will ensure
> > that the entire 1 GB is marked shared. But what about a malicious or
> > buggy guest? Let's assume a bad guest driver instructs the device to
> > write guest private memory.
> >
> > So now, the virtual device, which might be implemented as some host
> > side process, needs to (1) check and lock all 4k constituent RMP
> > entries (so they're not converted to private while the DMA write is
> > taking palce), (2) write the 1 GB buffer, and (3) unlock all 4 k
> > constituent RMP entries? If I'm understanding this correctly, then the
> > synchronization will be prohibitively expensive.
>
> Are you taking about a 1GB *mapping* here? As in, something us using a
> 1GB page table entry to map the 1GB memory buffer? That was the only
> case where I knew we needed coordination between neighbor RMP entries
> and host memory accesses.
>
> That 1GB problem _should_ be impossible. I thought we settled on
> disabling hugetlbfs and fracturing the whole of the direct map down to 4k.
No. I was trying to give an example where a host-side process is
virtualizing a DMA write over a large buffer that consists of a lot of
4k or 2MB RMP entries. I picked 1 GB as an arbitrary example.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists