linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH Part2 v6 09/49] x86/fault: Add support to handle the RMP fault for user address

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YvKRjxgipxLSNCLe@zn.tnic>
Date:   Tue, 9 Aug 2022 18:55:43 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Ashish Kalra <Ashish.Kalra@....com>
Cc:     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, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
        jroedel@...e.de, thomas.lendacky@....com, hpa@...or.com,
        ardb@...nel.org, pbonzini@...hat.com, seanjc@...gle.com,
        vkuznets@...hat.com, jmattson@...gle.com, luto@...nel.org,
        dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, slp@...hat.com, pgonda@...gle.com,
        peterz@...radead.org, srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com,
        rientjes@...gle.com, dovmurik@...ux.ibm.com, tobin@....com,
        michael.roth@....com, vbabka@...e.cz, kirill@...temov.name,
        ak@...ux.intel.com, tony.luck@...el.com, marcorr@...gle.com,
        sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com, alpergun@...gle.com,
        dgilbert@...hat.com, jarkko@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH Part2 v6 09/49] x86/fault: Add support to handle the RMP
 fault for user address

On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 11:03:43PM +0000, Ashish Kalra wrote:
> From: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
> 
> When SEV-SNP is enabled globally, a write from the host goes through the

globally?

Can SNP be even enabled any other way?

I see the APM talks about it being enabled globally, I guess this means
the RMP represents *all* system memory?

> @@ -1209,6 +1210,60 @@ do_kern_addr_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long hw_error_code,
>  }
>  NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(do_kern_addr_fault);
>  
> +static inline size_t pages_per_hpage(int level)
> +{
> +	return page_level_size(level) / PAGE_SIZE;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Return 1 if the caller need to retry, 0 if it the address need to be split
> + * in order to resolve the fault.
> + */

Magic numbers.

Pls do instead:

enum rmp_pf_ret {
	RMP_PF_SPLIT	= 0,
	RMP_PF_RETRY	= 1,
};

and use those instead.

> +static int handle_user_rmp_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long error_code,
> +				      unsigned long address)
> +{
> +	int rmp_level, level;
> +	pte_t *pte;
> +	u64 pfn;
> +
> +	pte = lookup_address_in_mm(current->mm, address, &level);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * It can happen if there was a race between an unmap event and
> +	 * the RMP fault delivery.
> +	 */

You need to elaborate more here: a RMP fault can happen and then the
page can get unmapped? What is the exact scenario here?

> +	if (!pte || !pte_present(*pte))
> +		return 1;
> +
> +	pfn = pte_pfn(*pte);
> +
> +	/* If its large page then calculte the fault pfn */
> +	if (level > PG_LEVEL_4K) {
> +		unsigned long mask;
> +
> +		mask = pages_per_hpage(level) - pages_per_hpage(level - 1);
> +		pfn |= (address >> PAGE_SHIFT) & mask;

Oh boy, this is unnecessarily complicated. Isn't this

	pfn |= pud_index(address);

or
	pfn |= pmd_index(address);

depending on the level?

I think it is but it needs more explaining.

In any case, those are two static masks exactly and they don't need to
be computed for each #PF.

> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> index 7274f2b52bca..c2187ffcbb8e 100644
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -4945,6 +4945,15 @@ static vm_fault_t handle_pte_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static int handle_split_page_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> +{
> +	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT))
> +		return VM_FAULT_SIGBUS;

Yah, this looks weird: generic code implies that page splitting after a
#PF makes sense only when SEV is present and none otherwise.

Why?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette