| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <9c58ad553facc17296019a8dad6a262bbf1118bd.camel@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 00:11:11 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...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: "Zhang, Tina" <tina.zhang@...el.com>, "seanjc@...gle.com"
<seanjc@...gle.com>, "Yuan, Hang" <hang.yuan@...el.com>, "Huang, Kai"
<kai.huang@...el.com>, "Chen, Bo2" <chen.bo@...el.com>, "sagis@...gle.com"
<sagis@...gle.com>, "isaku.yamahata@...il.com" <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>,
"Aktas, Erdem" <erdemaktas@...gle.com>, "pbonzini@...hat.com"
<pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 056/130] KVM: x86/tdp_mmu: Init role member of struct
kvm_mmu_page at allocation
On Mon, 2024-02-26 at 00:25 -0800, isaku.yamahata@...el.com wrote:
> To handle private page tables, argument of is_private needs to be
> passed
> down. Given that already page level is passed down, it would be
> cumbersome
> to add one more parameter about sp. Instead replace the level
> argument with
> union kvm_mmu_page_role. Thus the number of argument won't be
> increased
> and more info about sp can be passed down.
>
> For private sp, secure page table will be also allocated in addition
> to
> struct kvm_mmu_page and page table (spt member). The allocation
> functions
> (tdp_mmu_alloc_sp() and __tdp_mmu_alloc_sp_for_split()) need to know
> if the
> allocation is for the conventional page table or private page table.
> Pass
> union kvm_mmu_role to those functions and initialize role member of
> struct
> kvm_mmu_page.
tdp_mmu_alloc_sp() is only called in two places. One for the root, and
one for the mid-level tables.
In later patches when the kvm_mmu_alloc_private_spt() part is added,
the root case doesn't need anything done. So the code has to take
special care in tdp_mmu_alloc_sp() to avoid doing anything for the
root.
It only needs to do the special private spt allocation in non-root
case. If we open code that case, I think maybe we could drop this
patch, like the below.
The benefits are to drop this patch (which looks to already be part of
Paolo's series), and simplify "KVM: x86/mmu: Add a private pointer to
struct kvm_mmu_page". I'm not sure though, what do you think? Only
build tested.
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu_internal.h
b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu_internal.h
index f1533a753974..d6c2ee8bb636 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu_internal.h
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu_internal.h
@@ -176,30 +176,12 @@ static inline void
kvm_mmu_init_private_spt(struct kvm_mmu_page *sp, void *priva
static inline void kvm_mmu_alloc_private_spt(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
struct kvm_mmu_page *sp)
{
- bool is_root = vcpu->arch.root_mmu.root_role.level == sp-
>role.level;
-
- KVM_BUG_ON(!kvm_mmu_page_role_is_private(sp->role), vcpu->kvm);
- if (is_root)
- /*
- * Because TDX module assigns root Secure-EPT page and
set it to
- * Secure-EPTP when TD vcpu is created, secure page
table for
- * root isn't needed.
- */
- sp->private_spt = NULL;
- else {
- /*
- * Because the TDX module doesn't trust VMM and
initializes
- * the pages itself, KVM doesn't initialize them.
Allocate
- * pages with garbage and give them to the TDX module.
- */
- sp->private_spt = kvm_mmu_memory_cache_alloc(&vcpu-
>arch.mmu_private_spt_cache);
- /*
- * Because mmu_private_spt_cache is topped up before
starting
- * kvm page fault resolving, the allocation above
shouldn't
- * fail.
- */
- WARN_ON_ONCE(!sp->private_spt);
- }
+ /*
+ * Because the TDX module doesn't trust VMM and initializes
+ * the pages itself, KVM doesn't initialize them. Allocate
+ * pages with garbage and give them to the TDX module.
+ */
+ sp->private_spt = kvm_mmu_memory_cache_alloc(&vcpu-
>arch.mmu_private_spt_cache);
}
static inline gfn_t kvm_gfn_for_root(struct kvm *kvm, struct
kvm_mmu_page *root,
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
index ac7bf37b353f..f423a38019fb 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
@@ -195,9 +195,6 @@ static struct kvm_mmu_page *tdp_mmu_alloc_sp(struct
kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
sp = kvm_mmu_memory_cache_alloc(&vcpu-
>arch.mmu_page_header_cache);
sp->spt = kvm_mmu_memory_cache_alloc(&vcpu-
>arch.mmu_shadow_page_cache);
- if (kvm_mmu_page_role_is_private(role))
- kvm_mmu_alloc_private_spt(vcpu, sp);
-
return sp;
}
@@ -1378,6 +1375,8 @@ int kvm_tdp_mmu_map(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct
kvm_page_fault *fault)
* needs to be split.
*/
sp = tdp_mmu_alloc_sp(vcpu);
+ if (!(raw_gfn & kvm_gfn_shared_mask(kvm)))
+ kvm_mmu_alloc_private_spt(vcpu, sp);
tdp_mmu_init_child_sp(sp, &iter);
sp->nx_huge_page_disallowed = fault-
>huge_page_disallowed;
@@ -1670,7 +1669,6 @@ static struct kvm_mmu_page
*__tdp_mmu_alloc_sp_for_split(struct kvm *kvm, gfp_t
sp->spt = (void *)__get_free_page(gfp);
/* TODO: large page support for private GPA. */
- WARN_ON_ONCE(kvm_mmu_page_role_is_private(role));
if (!sp->spt) {
kmem_cache_free(mmu_page_header_cache, sp);
return NULL;
@@ -1686,10 +1684,6 @@ static struct kvm_mmu_page
*tdp_mmu_alloc_sp_for_split(struct kvm *kvm,
struct kvm_mmu_page *sp;
kvm_lockdep_assert_mmu_lock_held(kvm, shared);
- KVM_BUG_ON(kvm_mmu_page_role_is_private(role) !=
- is_private_sptep(iter->sptep), kvm);
- /* TODO: Large page isn't supported for private SPTE yet. */
- KVM_BUG_ON(kvm_mmu_page_role_is_private(role), kvm);
/*
* Since we are allocating while under the MMU lock we have to
be
Powered by blists - more mailing lists