linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 035/108] KVM: x86/mmu: Track shadow MMIO value on a per-VM basis

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: <Y4AIYGGEU3BdrQgV@yzhao56-desk.sh.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 25 Nov 2022 08:12:16 +0800
From:   Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
To:     "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
CC:     "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
        "sean.j.christopherson@...el.com" <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        "Shahar, Sagi" <sagis@...gle.com>,
        "isaku.yamahata@...il.com" <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>,
        "Aktas, Erdem" <erdemaktas@...gle.com>,
        "dmatlack@...gle.com" <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 035/108] KVM: x86/mmu: Track shadow MMIO value on a
 per-VM basis

On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 08:13:48AM +0800, Huang, Kai wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-11-22 at 10:10 +0800, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > Also make enable_mmio_caching to be a per-VM value?
> > As if the shadow_mmio_value is 0, mmio_caching needs to be disabled.
> 
> If I recall correctly, Sean said we can disable TDX guests if mmio_caching is
> disabled (we also will need to change to allow enable_mmio_caching to still be
> true when mmio_value is 0).
> 
> SEV_ES has similar logic:
> 
> void __init sev_hardware_setup(void)
> {
> 
> 	...
> 
>         /*
>          * SEV-ES requires MMIO caching as KVM doesn't have access to the guest
>          * instruction stream, i.e. can't emulate in response to a #NPF and
>          * instead relies on #NPF(RSVD) being reflected into the guest as #VC
>          * (the guest can then do a #VMGEXIT to request MMIO emulation).
>          */
>         if (!enable_mmio_caching)
>                 goto out;
> 

Would enabling mmio caching in per-VM basis be better?