[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YqNt3Sgzge5Rph/R@google.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 16:14:21 +0000
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, qemu-devel@...gnu.org,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
x86@...nel.org, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
"J . Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Steven Price <steven.price@....com>,
"Maciej S . Szmigiero" <mail@...iej.szmigiero.name>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@...gle.com>,
Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
jun.nakajima@...el.com, dave.hansen@...el.com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
david@...hat.com, aarcange@...hat.com, ddutile@...hat.com,
dhildenb@...hat.com, Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>, mhocko@...e.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/8] KVM: Extend the memslot to support fd-based
private memory
On Mon, May 30, 2022, Chao Peng wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 03:22:32PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Actually, if the semantics are that userspace declares memory as private, then we
> > can reuse KVM_MEMORY_ENCRYPT_REG_REGION and KVM_MEMORY_ENCRYPT_UNREG_REGION. It'd
> > be a little gross because we'd need to slightly redefine the semantics for TDX, SNP,
> > and software-protected VM types, e.g. the ioctls() currently require a pre-exisitng
> > memslot. But I think it'd work...
>
> These existing ioctls looks good for TDX and probably SNP as well. For
> softrware-protected VM types, it may not be enough. Maybe for the first
> step we can reuse this for all hardware based solutions and invent new
> interface when software-protected solution gets really supported.
>
> There is semantics difference for fd-based private memory. Current above
> two ioctls() use userspace addreess(hva) while for fd-based it should be
> fd+offset, and probably it's better to use gpa in this case. Then we
> will need change existing semantics and break backward-compatibility.
My thought was to keep the existing semantics for VMs with type==0, i.e. SEV and
SEV-ES VMs. It's a bit gross, but the pinning behavior is a dead end for SNP and
TDX, so it effectively needs to be deprecated anyways. I'm definitely not opposed
to a new ioctl if Paolo or others think this is too awful, but burning an ioctl
for this seems wasteful.
Then generic KVM can do something like:
case KVM_MEMORY_ENCRYPT_REG_REGION:
case KVM_MEMORY_ENCRYPT_UNREG_REGION:
struct kvm_enc_region region;
if (!kvm_arch_vm_supports_private_memslots(kvm))
goto arch_vm_ioctl;
r = -EFAULT;
if (copy_from_user(®ion, argp, sizeof(region)))
goto out;
r = kvm_set_encrypted_region(ioctl, ®ion);
break;
default:
arch_vm_ioctl:
r = kvm_arch_vm_ioctl(filp, ioctl, arg);
where common KVM provides
__weak void kvm_arch_vm_supports_private_memslots(struct kvm *kvm)
{
return false;
}
and x86 overrides that to
bool kvm_arch_vm_supports_private_memslots(struct kvm *kvm)
{
/* I can't remember what we decided on calling type '0' VMs. */
return !!kvm->vm_type;
}
and if someone ever wants to enable private memslot for SEV/SEV-ES guests we can
always add a capability or even a new VM type.
pKVM on arm can then obviously implement kvm_arch_vm_supports_private_memslots()
to grab whatever identifies a pKVM VM.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists