linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V7 1/5] swiotlb: Add swiotlb bounce buffer remap function for HV IVM

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: <20211216110501.y2i7adl3ilkrodaq@liuwe-devbox-debian-v2>
Date:   Thu, 16 Dec 2021 11:05:01 +0000
From:   Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>
To:     Tianyu Lan <ltykernel@...il.com>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>, kys@...rosoft.com,
        haiyangz@...rosoft.com, sthemmin@...rosoft.com, wei.liu@...nel.org,
        decui@...rosoft.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
        bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org,
        hpa@...or.com, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
        jejb@...ux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com, arnd@...db.de,
        hch@...radead.org, m.szyprowski@...sung.com, robin.murphy@....com,
        Tianyu.Lan@...rosoft.com, michael.h.kelley@...rosoft.com,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        vkuznets@...hat.com, brijesh.singh@....com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
        hch@....de, joro@...tes.org, parri.andrea@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 1/5] swiotlb: Add swiotlb bounce buffer remap function
 for HV IVM

On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 01:00:38PM +0800, Tianyu Lan wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12/15/2021 6:40 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 12/14/21 2:23 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > > > I don't really understand how this can be more general any *not* get
> > > > utilized by the existing SEV support.
> > > 
> > > The Virtual Top-of-Memory (VTOM) support is an SEV-SNP feature that is
> > > meant to be used with a (relatively) un-enlightened guest. The idea is
> > > that the C-bit in the guest page tables must be 0 for all accesses. It
> > > is only the physical address relative to VTOM that determines if the
> > > access is encrypted or not. So setting sme_me_mask will actually cause
> > > issues when running with this feature. Since all DMA for an SEV-SNP
> > > guest must still be to shared (unencrypted) memory, some enlightenment
> > > is needed. In this case, memory mapped above VTOM will provide that via
> > > the SWIOTLB update. For SEV-SNP guests running with VTOM, they are
> > > likely to also be running with the Reflect #VC feature, allowing a
> > > "paravisor" to handle any #VCs generated by the guest.
> > > 
> > > See sections 15.36.8 "Virtual Top-of-Memory" and 15.36.9 "Reflect #VC"
> > > in volume 2 of the AMD APM [1].
> > 
> > Thanks, Tom, that's pretty much what I was looking for.
> > 
> > The C-bit normally comes from the page tables.  But, the hardware also
> > provides an alternative way to effectively get C-bit behavior without
> > actually setting the bit in the page tables: Virtual Top-of-Memory
> > (VTOM).  Right?
> > 
> > It sounds like Hyper-V has chosen to use VTOM instead of requiring the
> > guest to do the C-bit in its page tables.
> > 
> > But, the thing that confuses me is when you said: "it (VTOM) is meant to
> > be used with a (relatively) un-enlightened guest".  We don't have an
> > unenlightened guest here.  We have Linux, which is quite enlightened.
> > 
> > > Is VTOM being used because there's something that completely rules out
> > > using the C-bit in the page tables?  What's that "something"?
> 
> 
> For "un-enlightened" guest, there is an another system running insider
> the VM to emulate some functions(tsc, timer, interrupt and so on) and
> this helps not to modify OS(Linux/Windows) a lot. In Hyper-V Isolation
> VM, we called the new system as HCL/paravisor. HCL runs in the VMPL0 and
> Linux runs in VMPL2. This is similar with nested virtualization. HCL
> plays similar role as L1 hypervisor to emulate some general functions
> (e.g, rdmsr/wrmsr accessing and interrupt injection) which needs to be
> enlightened in the enlightened guest. Linux kernel needs to handle
> #vc/#ve exception directly in the enlightened guest. HCL handles such
> exception in un-enlightened guest and emulate interrupt injection which
> helps not to modify OS core part code. Using vTOM also is same purpose.
> Hyper-V uses vTOM avoid changing page table related code in OS(include
> Windows and Linux)and just needs to map memory into decrypted address
> space above vTOM in the driver code.
> 
> Linux has generic swiotlb bounce buffer implementation and so introduce
> swiotlb_unencrypted_base here to set shared memory boundary or vTOM.
> Hyper-V Isolation VM is un-enlightened guest. Hyper-V doesn't expose sev/sme
> capability to guest and so SEV code actually doesn't work.
> So we also can't interact current existing SEV code and these code is
> for enlightened guest support without HCL/paravisor. If other platforms
> or SEV want to use similar vTOM feature, swiotlb_unencrypted_base can
> be reused. So swiotlb_unencrypted_base is a general solution for all
> platforms besides SEV and Hyper-V.
> 

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

Dave, are you happy with this?

The code looks pretty solid to my untrained eyes. And the series has
collected necessary acks from stakeholders. If I don't hear objection by
EOD Friday I will apply this series to hyperv-next.

Wei.