linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 10/20] x86/virt/tdx: Use all system memory when initializing TDX module as TDX memory

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: <361875cb-e4b3-a46f-b275-6d87a98ce966@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 25 Nov 2022 10:28:15 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>,
        "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "bagasdotme@...il.com" <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
        "ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Wysocki, Rafael J" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        "kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        "Chatre, Reinette" <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
        "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Shahar, Sagi" <sagis@...gle.com>,
        "imammedo@...hat.com" <imammedo@...hat.com>,
        "Gao, Chao" <chao.gao@...el.com>,
        "Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>,
        "sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 10/20] x86/virt/tdx: Use all system memory when
 initializing TDX module as TDX memory

On 24.11.22 10:06, Huang, Kai wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-11-23 at 17:50 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>>>    
>>> @@ -968,6 +969,15 @@ int arch_add_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size,
>>>    	unsigned long start_pfn = start >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>>>    	unsigned long nr_pages = size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>>>    
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * For now if TDX is enabled, all pages in the page allocator
>>> +	 * must be TDX memory, which is a fixed set of memory regions
>>> +	 * that are passed to the TDX module.  Reject the new region
>>> +	 * if it is not TDX memory to guarantee above is true.
>>> +	 */
>>> +	if (!tdx_cc_memory_compatible(start_pfn, start_pfn + nr_pages))
>>> +		return -EINVAL;
>>
>> arch_add_memory() does not add memory to the page allocator.  For
>> example, memremap_pages() uses arch_add_memory() and explicitly does not
>> release the memory to the page allocator.
> 
> Indeed.  Sorry I missed this.
> 
>> This check belongs in
>> add_memory_resource() to prevent new memory that violates TDX from being
>> onlined.
> 
> This would require adding another 'arch_cc_memory_compatible()' to the common
> add_memory_resource() (I actually long time ago had such patch to work with the
> memremap_pages() you mentioned above).
> 
> How about adding a memory_notifier to the TDX code, and reject online of TDX
> incompatible memory (something like below)?  The benefit is this is TDX code
> self contained and won't pollute the common mm code:
> 
> +static int tdx_memory_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb,
> +                              unsigned long action, void *v)
> +{
> +       struct memory_notify *mn = v;
> +
> +       if (action != MEM_GOING_ONLINE)
> +               return NOTIFY_OK;
> +
> +       /*
> +        * Not all memory is compatible with TDX.  Reject
> +        * online of any incompatible memory.
> +        */
> +       return tdx_cc_memory_compatible(mn->start_pfn,
> +                       mn->start_pfn + mn->nr_pages) ? NOTIFY_OK : NOTIFY_BAD;
> +}
> +
> +static struct notifier_block tdx_memory_nb = {
> +       .notifier_call = tdx_memory_notifier,
> +};

With mhp_memmap_on_memory() some memory might already be touched during 
add_memory() (because part of the hotplug memory is used for holding the 
memmap), not when actually onlining memory. So in that case, this would 
be too late.

add_memory_resource() sounds better, even though I disgust such TDX 
special handling in common code.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb