linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 058/113] KVM: TDX: MTRR: implement get_mt

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: <1a32f2570f13fa0125ddbbceeabcd36fc4beb9db.camel@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Jan 2023 03:11:46 +0000
From:   "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
To:     "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>
CC:     "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "Shahar, Sagi" <sagis@...gle.com>,
        "Aktas, Erdem" <erdemaktas@...gle.com>,
        "isaku.yamahata@...il.com" <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>,
        "dmatlack@...gle.com" <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
        "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 058/113] KVM: TDX: MTRR: implement get_mt_mask() for
 TDX

On Thu, 2023-01-12 at 08:32 -0800, isaku.yamahata@...el.com wrote:
> From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>
> 
> Although TDX supports only WB for private GPA, MTRR/PAT for shared GPA
> should be supported. Implement get_mt_mask() following vmx case.

By far this is the first patch to handle MTRR/PAT.  There's absolutely no
background have been explained.

So what about MTRR/PAT related MSRs handling?  No code needed to handle?

I was expecting there should be at least some words here to explain how TDX
handles them, and if no handling is required in KVM, why.

W/o those, I don't think this patch is reviewable.  

> 
> Signed-off-by: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kvm/vmx/main.c    | 10 +++++++++-
>  arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c     | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>  arch/x86/kvm/vmx/x86_ops.h |  2 ++
>  3 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/main.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/main.c
> index 770d1b29d1c3..4319f6d7a4da 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/main.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/main.c
> @@ -158,6 +158,14 @@ static void vt_load_mmu_pgd(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, hpa_t root_hpa,
>  	vmx_load_mmu_pgd(vcpu, root_hpa, pgd_level);
>  }
>  
> +static u8 vt_get_mt_mask(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gfn_t gfn, bool is_mmio)
> +{
> +	if (is_td_vcpu(vcpu))
> +		return tdx_get_mt_mask(vcpu, gfn, is_mmio);
> +
> +	return vmx_get_mt_mask(vcpu, gfn, is_mmio);
> +}
> +
>  static int vt_mem_enc_ioctl(struct kvm *kvm, void __user *argp)
>  {
>  	if (!is_td(kvm))
> @@ -267,7 +275,7 @@ struct kvm_x86_ops vt_x86_ops __initdata = {
>  
>  	.set_tss_addr = vmx_set_tss_addr,
>  	.set_identity_map_addr = vmx_set_identity_map_addr,
> -	.get_mt_mask = vmx_get_mt_mask,
> +	.get_mt_mask = vt_get_mt_mask,
>  
>  	.get_exit_info = vmx_get_exit_info,
>  
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c
> index e68816999387..c4c5a8f786c1 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c
> @@ -309,6 +309,25 @@ int tdx_vm_init(struct kvm *kvm)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +u8 tdx_get_mt_mask(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gfn_t gfn, bool is_mmio)
> +{
> +	/* TDX private GPA is always WB. */
> +	if (gfn & kvm_gfn_shared_mask(vcpu->kvm)) {

First of all, private GPA doesn't have 'shared bit' set, so comment  doesn't
reflect code.

Secondly (and again), IIUC the shared bit of the gfn has been stripped out long
time ago, so this is incorrect.

Please don't sliently ignore other people's comment:

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Y19NzlQcwhV%2F2wl3@debian.me/T/#mf319d5b718519709362f9f094bfc5b53fd870241



> +		WARN_ON_ONCE(is_mmio);
> +		return  MTRR_TYPE_WRBACK << VMX_EPT_MT_EPTE_SHIFT;

Shouldn't you also include VMX_EPT_IPAT_BIT?  I lost your logic..

> +	}
> +
> +	if (is_mmio)
> +		return MTRR_TYPE_UNCACHABLE << VMX_EPT_MT_EPTE_SHIFT;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Device assignemnt without VT-d snooping capability with shared-GPA
> +	 * is dubious.
> +	 */
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(kvm_arch_has_noncoherent_dma(vcpu->kvm));

Is there any code to reject such case at the beginning, for instance, don't
allow assigning device in such case?

> +	return (MTRR_TYPE_WRBACK << VMX_EPT_MT_EPTE_SHIFT) | VMX_EPT_IPAT_BIT;
> +}
> +
>  int tdx_vcpu_create(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  {
>  	struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *e;
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/x86_ops.h b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/x86_ops.h
> index 8ae689929347..d903e0f606d3 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/x86_ops.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/x86_ops.h
> @@ -154,6 +154,7 @@ void tdx_vm_free(struct kvm *kvm);
>  int tdx_vcpu_create(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>  void tdx_vcpu_free(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>  void tdx_vcpu_reset(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool init_event);
> +u8 tdx_get_mt_mask(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gfn_t gfn, bool is_mmio);
>  
>  int tdx_vm_ioctl(struct kvm *kvm, void __user *argp);
>  int tdx_vcpu_ioctl(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, void __user *argp);
> @@ -176,6 +177,7 @@ static inline void tdx_vm_free(struct kvm *kvm) {}
>  static inline int tdx_vcpu_create(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) { return -EOPNOTSUPP; }
>  static inline void tdx_vcpu_free(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
>  static inline void tdx_vcpu_reset(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool init_event) {}
> +static inline u8 tdx_get_mt_mask(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gfn_t gfn, bool is_mmio) { return 0; }
>  
>  static inline int tdx_vm_ioctl(struct kvm *kvm, void __user *argp) { return -EOPNOTSUPP; }
>  static inline int tdx_vcpu_ioctl(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, void __user *argp) { return -EOPNOTSUPP; }