linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: arm64: Only set KVM_MODE_PROTECTED if is_hyp_mode

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <871qsjqpjg.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date:   Sat, 10 Sep 2022 15:20:35 +0100
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@...cinc.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@....com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: arm64: Only set KVM_MODE_PROTECTED if is_hyp_mode_available()

On Sat, 10 Sep 2022 14:43:44 +0100,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2022 at 10:09:31AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Fri, 09 Sep 2022 18:55:18 +0100,
> > Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@...cinc.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 9/9/2022 10:28 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 07:45:52AM -0700, Elliot Berman wrote:
> > > >> Do not switch kvm_mode to KVM_MODE_PROTECTED if hypervisor mode is not
> > > >> available. This prevents "Protected KVM" cpu capability being reported
> > > >> when Linux is booting in EL1 and would not have KVM enabled.
> > > >> 
> > > >> Signed-off-by: Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@...cinc.com>
> > > >> ---
> > > >>   arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 4 +++-
> > > >>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >> 
> > > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > > >> index 8fe73ee5fa84..861f4b388879 100644
> > > >> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > > >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > > >> @@ -2272,7 +2272,9 @@ static int __init early_kvm_mode_cfg(char *arg)
> > > >>   		return -EINVAL;
> > > >>     	if (strcmp(arg, "protected") == 0) {
> > > >> -		if (!is_kernel_in_hyp_mode())
> > > >> +		if (!is_hyp_mode_available())
> > > >> +			kvm_mode = KVM_MODE_DEFAULT;
> > > > 
> > > > I think kvm_mode is already KVM_MODE_DEFAULT at this point. You may want
> > > > to print a warning instead.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Does it make sense to print warning for kvm-arm.mode=nvhe as well?
> > 
> > In general, specifying a kvm-arm.mode when no hypervisor mode is
> > available should be reported as a warning.
> 
> As long as this is pr_warn() rather than WARN() then I agree. Otherwise,
> kernels with a kvm-arm.mode hardcoded in CONFIG_CMDLINE (e.g. Android's
> GKI) will make for noisy guests.

Indeed, pr_warn() is what I had in mind. A WARN() would be pretty
overkill, as there is nothing majorly wrong with booting at EL1, just
an impossibility to honour the request from the command line.

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.