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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2022 23:49:19 +0000 From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> To: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com> Cc: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>, "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "Shahar, Sagi" <sagis@...gle.com>, "isaku.yamahata@...il.com" <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Aktas, Erdem" <erdemaktas@...gle.com>, "sean.j.christopherson@...el.com" <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>, "dmatlack@...gle.com" <dmatlack@...gle.com>, "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>, "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, Yan Zhao wrote: > On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 09:07:09AM +0800, Huang, Kai wrote: > > On Fri, 2022-11-25 at 08:37 +0800, Yan Zhao wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 08:45:01AM +0800, Huang, Kai wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2022-11-25 at 08:12 +0800, Yan Zhao wrote: > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > > > > > > We need Paolo/Sean to decide. > > > > > > > > The thing is TDX guests always require mmio_caching being enabled. For VMX > > > > guests, normally we will always enable mmio_caching too. So I think per-VM > > > > basis mmio_caching is not that useful. > > > With per-VM basis enabling, I think we can get rid of the kvm_gfn_shared_mask(kvm) > > > in below code and also in handle_abnormal_pfn() > > > > > > static inline bool is_mmio_spte(struct kvm *kvm, u64 spte) > > > { > > > return (spte & shadow_mmio_mask) == kvm->arch.shadow_mmio_value && > > > likely(enable_mmio_caching || kvm_gfn_shared_mask(kvm)); > > > } > > > > > > > It needs to go anyway regardless per-VM mmio_caching or not, as explained we > > need to change to allow enable_mmio_caching to be true even mmio_value is 0. Yes, the kvm_gfn_shared_mask() in is_mmio_spte() should not exist. > Or it's better to check enable_mmio_caching is true in > kvm_mmu_set_mmio_spte_value() as below. > > void kvm_mmu_set_mmio_spte_value(struct kvm *kvm, u64 mmio_value) > { > WARN_ON(!enable_mmio_caching); > kvm->arch.shadow_mmio_value = mmio_value; Eh, if you're going to bother with that assert, capture the more subtle aspects as well, e.g. that EPT is enabled and that shadow_mmio_mask has been set to the expected value. I would also ditch the helper and just open code this in TDX code, I doubt there's a use case outside of TDX+VMX coexistence.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists