linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/16] KVM: x86/mmu: Introduce a slot flag to zap only slot leafs on slot deletion

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]

Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 11:36:04 +1200
From: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC: Rick P Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>, "dmatlack@...gle.com"
	<dmatlack@...gle.com>, "sagis@...gle.com" <sagis@...gle.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Yan Y Zhao
	<yan.y.zhao@...el.com>, Erdem Aktas <erdemaktas@...gle.com>,
	"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "pbonzini@...hat.com"
	<pbonzini@...hat.com>, "isaku.yamahata@...il.com" <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/16] KVM: x86/mmu: Introduce a slot flag to zap only
 slot leafs on slot deletion



On 16/05/2024 11:20 am, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2024, Kai Huang wrote:
>>>> You had said up the thread, why not opt all non-normal VMs into the new
>>>> behavior. It will work great for TDX. But why do SEV and others want this
>>>> automatically?
>>>
>>> Because I want flexibility in KVM, i.e. I want to take the opportunity to try and
>>> break away from KVM's godawful ABI.  It might be a pipe dream, as keying off the
>>> VM type obviously has similar risks to giving userspace a memslot flag.  The one
>>> sliver of hope is that the VM types really are quite new (though less so for SEV
>>> and SEV-ES), whereas a memslot flag would be easily applied to existing VMs.
>>
>> Btw, does the "zap-leaf-only" approach always have better performance,
>> assuming we have to hold MMU write lock for that?
> 
> I highly doubt it, especially given how much the TDP MMU can now do with mmu_lock
> held for read.
> 
>> Consider a huge memslot being deleted/moved.
>>
>> If we can always have a better performance for "zap-leaf-only", then instead
>> of letting userspace to opt-in this feature, we perhaps can do the opposite:
>>
>> We always do the "zap-leaf-only" in KVM, but add a quirk for the VMs that
>> userspace know can have such bug and apply this quirk.
> 
> Hmm, a quirk isn't a bad idea.  It suffers the same problems as a memslot flag,
> i.e. who knows when it's safe to disable the quirk, but I would hope userspace
> would be much, much cautious about disabling a quirk that comes with a massive
> disclaimer.
> 
> Though I suspect Paolo will shoot this down too ;-)

The quirk only works based on the assumption that userspace _exactly_ 
knows what kinda VMs will have this bug.

But as mentioned above, the first step is we need to convince ourselves 
that doing "zap-leaf-only" by default is the right thing to do.

:-)