linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/33] KVM: x86: hyperv: Introduce VSM support

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: <CWVD6IUUDJ1H.27RK4NIBUTSD6@amazon.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Nov 2023 19:04:20 +0000
From:   Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenz@...zon.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC:     <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>, <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        <vkuznets@...hat.com>, <anelkz@...zon.com>, <graf@...zon.com>,
        <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>, <jgowans@...zon.com>, <corbert@....net>,
        <kys@...rosoft.com>, <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        <decui@...rosoft.com>, <x86@...nel.org>,
        <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/33] KVM: x86: hyperv: Introduce VSM support

On Wed Nov 8, 2023 at 4:55 PM UTC, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > This RFC series introduces the necessary infrastructure to emulate VSM
> > enabled guests. It is a snapshot of the progress we made so far, and its
> > main goal is to gather design feedback.
>
> Heh, then please provide an overview of the design, and ideally context and/or
> justification for various design decisions.  It doesn't need to be a proper design
> doc, and you can certainly point at other documentation for explaining VSM/VTLs,
> but a few paragraphs and/or verbose bullet points would go a long way.
>
> The documentation in patch 33 provides an explanation of VSM itself, and a little
> insight into how userspace can utilize the KVM implementation.  But the documentation
> provides no explanation of the mechanics that KVM *developers* care about, e.g.
> the use of memory attributes, how memory attributes are enforced, whether or not
> an in-kernel local APIC is required, etc.

Noted, I'll provide a design review on the next submission.

> Nor does the documentation explain *why*, e.g. why store a separate set of memory
> attributes per VTL "device", which by the by is broken and unnecessary.

It's clear to me how the current implementation of VTL devices is
broken. But unncessary? That made me think we could inject the VTL In
the memory attribute key, for ex. with 'gfn | vtl << 58'. And then use
generic API and a single xarray.

Nicolas