linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] KVM: X86: Add and use shadow page with level promoted or acting as pae

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: <e62a3f5f55159bc941360d489d8bffb2b0b716f9.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Dec 2021 12:27:32 +0200
From:   Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
To:     Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] KVM: X86: Add and use shadow page with level
 promoted or acting as pae_root

On Fri, 2021-12-10 at 17:25 +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...ux.alibaba.com>
> 
> (Request For Help for testing on AMD machine with 32 bit L1 hypervisor,
> see information below)
> 
> KVM handles root pages specially for these cases:
> 
> direct mmu (nonpaping for 32 bit guest):
> 	gCR0_PG=0
> shadow mmu (shadow paping for 32 bit guest):
> 	gCR0_PG=1,gEFER_LMA=0,gCR4_PSE=0
> 	gCR0_PG=1,gEFER_LMA=0,gCR4_PSE=1
> direct mmu (NPT for 32bit host):
> 	hEFER_LMA=0
> shadow nested NPT (for 32bit L1 hypervisor):
> 	gCR0_PG=1,gEFER_LMA=0,gCR4_PSE=0,hEFER_LMA=0
> 	gCR0_PG=1,gEFER_LMA=0,gCR4_PSE=1,hEFER_LMA=0
> 	gCR0_PG=1,gEFER_LMA=0,gCR4_PSE={0|1},hEFER_LMA=1,hCR4_LA57={0|1}
> Shadow nested NPT for 64bit L1 hypervisor:
> 	gEFER_LMA=1,gCR4_LA57=0,hEFER_LMA=1,hCR4_LA57=1
> 
> They are either using special roots or matched the condition 
> ((mmu->shadow_root_level > mmu->root_level) && !mm->direct_map)
> (refered as level promotion) or both.
> 
> All the cases are using special roots except the last one.
> Many cases are doing level promotion including the last one.
> 
> When special roots are used, the root page will not be backed by
> kvm_mmu_page.  So they must be treated specially, but not all places
> is considering this problem, and Sean is adding some code to check
> this special roots.
> 
> When level promotion, the kvm treats them silently always.
> 
> These treaments incur problems or complication, see the changelog
> of every patch.
> 
> These patches were made when I reviewed all the usage of shadow_root_level
> and root_level.  Some of them are sent and accepted.  Patch3-6 are too
> complicated so they had been held back.  Patch1 and patch2 were sent.
> Patch1 was rejected, but I think it is good.  Patch2 is said to be
> accepted, but it is not shown in the kvm/queue.  Patch3-6 conflicts
> with patch1,2 so patch1,2 are included here too.
> 
> Other reason that patch 3-6 were held back is that the patch 3-6 are
> not tested with shadow NPT cases listed above.  Because I don't have
> guest images can act as 32 bit L1 hypervisor, nor I can access to
> AMD machine with 5 level paging.  I'm a bit reluctant to ask for the
> resource, so I send the patches and wish someone test them and modify
> them.  At least, it provides some thinking and reveals problems of the
> existing code and of the AMD cases.
> ( *Request For Help* here.)
> 
> These patches have been tested with the all cases except the shadow-NPT
> cases, the code coverage is believed to be more than 95% (hundreds of
> code related to shadow-NPT are shoved, and be replaced with common
> role.pae_root and role.level_promoted code with only 8 line of code is
> added for shadow-NPT, only 2 line of code is not covered in my tests).
> 
> And Sean also found the problem of the last case listed above and asked
> questions in a reply[1] to one of my emails, I hope this patchset can
> be my reply to his questions about such complicated case.
> 
> If special roots are removed and PAE page is write-protected, there
> can be some more cleanups.
> 
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YbFY533IT3XSIqAK@google.com/
> 
> Lai Jiangshan (6):
>   KVM: X86: Check root_level only in fast_pgd_switch()
>   KVM: X86: Walk shadow page starting with shadow_root_level
>   KVM: X86: Add arguement gfn and role to kvm_mmu_alloc_page()
>   KVM: X86: Introduce role.level_promoted
>   KVM: X86: Alloc pae_root shadow page
>   KVM: X86: Use level_promoted and pae_root shadow page for 32bit guests
> 
>  arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h |   9 +-
>  arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c          | 440 ++++++++++----------------------
>  arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu_audit.c    |  26 +-
>  arch/x86/kvm/mmu/paging_tmpl.h  |  15 +-
>  arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.h      |   7 +-
>  5 files changed, 164 insertions(+), 333 deletions(-)
> 


I have 32 bit VM which can run an other 32 bit VM, and both it and the nested VM are using the mainline kernel).
I'll test this patch series soon.

I also have seabios hacked to use PAE instead of no paging, which I usually use for my 32 bit guests,
so I can make it switch to SMM+PAE paging mode to test it.

Best regards,
	Maxim Levitsky