Message-ID: <diqzh6p02lk4.fsf@ackerleytng-ctop.c.googlers.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Aug 2023 18:43:39 +0000
From:   Ackerley Tng <ackerleytng@...gle.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     pbonzini@...hat.com, maz@...nel.org, oliver.upton@...ux.dev,
        chenhuacai@...nel.org, mpe@...erman.id.au, anup@...infault.org,
        paul.walmsley@...ive.com, palmer@...belt.com,
        aou@...s.berkeley.edu, willy@...radead.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, paul@...l-moore.com, jmorris@...ei.org,
        serge@...lyn.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com,
        tabba@...gle.com, jarkko@...nel.org, yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com,
        vannapurve@...gle.com, mail@...iej.szmigiero.name, vbabka@...e.cz,
        david@...hat.com, qperret@...gle.com, michael.roth@....com,
        wei.w.wang@...el.com, liam.merwick@...cle.com,
        isaku.yamahata@...il.com, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v11 12/29] KVM: Add KVM_CREATE_GUEST_MEMFD ioctl() for
 guest-specific backing memory

Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> writes:

> On Mon, Aug 07, 2023, Ackerley Tng wrote:
>> I’d like to propose an alternative to the refcounting approach between
>> the gmem file and associated kvm, where we think of KVM’s memslots as
>> users of the gmem file.
>>
>> Instead of having the gmem file pin the VM (i.e. take a refcount on
>> kvm), we could let memslot take a refcount on the gmem file when the
>> memslots are configured.
>>
>> Here’s a POC patch that flips the refcounting (and modified selftests in
>> the next commit):
>> https://github.com/googleprodkernel/linux-cc/commit/7f487b029b89b9f3e9b094a721bc0772f3c8c797
>>
>> One side effect of having the gmem file pin the VM is that now the gmem
>> file becomes sort of a false handle on the VM:
>>
>> + Closing the file destroys the file pointers in the VM and invalidates
>>   the pointers
>
> Yeah, this is less than ideal.  But, it's also how things operate today.  KVM
> doesn't hold references to VMAs or files, e.g. if userspace munmap()s memory,
> any and all SPTEs pointing at the memory are zapped.  The only difference with
> gmem is that KVM needs to explicitly invalidate file pointers, instead of that
> happening behind the scenes (no more VMAs to find).  Again, I agree the resulting
> code is more complex than I would prefer, but from a userspace perspective I
> don't see this as problematic.
>
>> + Keeping the file open keeps the VM around in the kernel even though
>>   the VM fd may already be closed.
>
> That is perfectly ok.  There is plenty of prior art, as well as plenty of ways
> for userspace to shoot itself in the foot.  E.g. open a stats fd for a vCPU and
> the VM and all its vCPUs will be kept alive.  And conceptually it's sound,
> anything created in the scope of a VM _should_ pin the VM.
>

Thanks for explaining!

>> I feel that memslots form a natural way of managing usage of the gmem
>> file. When a memslot is created, it is using the file; hence we take a
>> refcount on the gmem file, and as memslots are removed, we drop
>> refcounts on the gmem file.
>
> Yes and no.  It's definitely more natural *if* the goal is to allow guest_memfd
> memory to exist without being attached to a VM.  But I'm not at all convinced
> that we want to allow that, or that it has desirable properties.  With TDX and
> SNP in particuarly, I'm pretty sure that allowing memory to outlive the VM is
> very underisable (more below).
>

This is a little confusing, with the file/inode split in gmem where the
physical memory/data is attached to the inode and the file represents
the VM's view of that memory, won't the memory outlive the VM?

This [1] POC was built based on that premise, that the gmem inode can be
linked to another file and handed off to another VM, to facilitate
intra-host migration, where the point is to save the work of rebuilding
the VM's memory in the destination VM.

With this, the bindings don't outlive the VM, but the data/memory
does. I think this split design you proposed is really nice.

>> The KVM pointer is shared among all the bindings in gmem’s xarray, and we can
>> enforce that a gmem file is used only with one VM:
>>
>> + When binding a memslot to the file, if a kvm pointer exists, it must
>>   be the same kvm as the one in this binding
>> + When the binding to the last memslot is removed from a file, NULL the
>>   kvm pointer.
>
> Nullifying the KVM pointer isn't sufficient, because without additional actions
> userspace could extract data from a VM by deleting its memslots and then binding
> the guest_memfd to an attacker controlled VM.  Or more likely with TDX and SNP,
> induce badness by coercing KVM into mapping memory into a guest with the wrong
> ASID/HKID.
>
> I can think of three ways to handle that:
>
>   (a) prevent a different VM from *ever* binding to the gmem instance
>   (b) free/zero physical pages when unbinding
>   (c) free/zero when binding to a different VM
>
> Option (a) is easy, but that pretty much defeats the purpose of decopuling
> guest_memfd from a VM.
>
> Option (b) isn't hard to implement, but it screws up the lifecycle of the memory,
> e.g. would require memory when a memslot is deleted.  That isn't necessarily a
> deal-breaker, but it runs counter to how KVM memlots currently operate.  Memslots
> are basically just weird page tables, e.g. deleting a memslot doesn't have any
> impact on the underlying data in memory.  TDX throws a wrench in this as removing
> a page from the Secure EPT is effectively destructive to the data (can't be mapped
> back in to the VM without zeroing the data), but IMO that's an oddity with TDX and
> not necessarily something we want to carry over to other VM types.
>
> There would also be performance implications (probably a non-issue in practice),
> and weirdness if/when we get to sharing, linking and/or mmap()ing gmem.  E.g. what
> should happen if the last memslot (binding) is deleted, but there outstanding userspace
> mappings?
>
> Option (c) is better from a lifecycle perspective, but it adds its own flavor of
> complexity, e.g. the performant way to reclaim TDX memory requires the TDMR
> (effectively the VM pointer), and so a deferred relcaim doesn't really work for
> TDX.  And I'm pretty sure it *can't* work for SNP, because RMP entries must not
> outlive the VM; KVM can't reuse an ASID if there are pages assigned to that ASID
> in the RMP, i.e. until all memory belonging to the VM has been fully freed.
>

If we are on the same page that the memory should outlive the VM but not
the bindings, then associating the gmem inode to a new VM should be a
feature and not a bug.

What do we want to defend against here?

(a) Malicious host VMM

For a malicious host VMM to read guest memory (with TDX and SNP), it can
create a new VM with the same HKID/ASID as the victim VM, rebind the
gmem inode to a VM crafted with an image that dumps the memory.

I believe it is not possible for userspace to arbitrarily select a
matching HKID unless userspace uses the intra-host migration ioctls, but if the
migration ioctl is used, then EPTs are migrated and the memory dumper VM
can't successfully run a different image from the victim VM. If the
dumper VM needs to run the same image as the victim VM, then it would be
a successful migration rather than an attack. (Perhaps we need to clean
up some #MCs here but that can be a separate patch)

(b) Malicious host kernel

A malicious host kernel can allow a malicious host VMM to re-use a HKID
for the dumper VM, but this isn't something a better gmem design can
defend against.

(c) Attacks using gmem for software-protected VMs

Attacks using gmem for software-protected VMs are possible since there
is no real encryption with HKID/ASID (yet?). The selftest for [1]
actually uses this lack of encryption to test that the destination VM
can read the source VM's memory after the migration. In the POC [1], as
long as both destination VM knows where in the inode's memory to read,
it can read what it wants to. This is a problem for software-protected
VMs, but I feel that it is also a separate issue from gmem's design.

>> Could binding gmem files not on creation, but at memslot configuration
>> time be sufficient and simpler?
>
> After working through the flows, I think binding on-demand would simplify the
> refcounting (stating the obvious), but complicate the lifecycle of the memory as
> well as the contract between KVM and userspace,

If we are on the same page that the memory should outlive the VM but not
the bindings, does it still complicate the lifecycle of the memory and
the userspace/KVM contract? Could it just be a different contract?

> and would break the separation of
> concerns between the inode (physical memory / data) and file (VM's view / mappings).

Binding on-demand is orthogonal to the separation of concerns between
inode and file, because it can be built regardless of whether we do the
gmem file/inode split.

+ This flip-the-refcounting POC is built with the file/inode split and
+ In [2] (the delayed binding approach to solve intra-host migration), I
  also tried flipping the refcounting, and that without the gmem
  file/inode split. (Refcounting in [2] is buggy because the file can't
  take a refcount on KVM, but it would work without taking that refcount)

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/cover.1691446946.git.ackerleytng@google.com/T/
[2] https://github.com/googleprodkernel/linux-cc/commit/dd5ac5e53f14a1ef9915c9c1e4cc1006a40b49df

Powered by blists - more mailing lists