linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v19 037/130] KVM: TDX: Make KVM_CAP_MAX

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, 30 May 2024 16:12:44 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>
Cc: Tina Zhang <tina.zhang@...el.com>, 
	"isaku.yamahata@...ux.intel.com" <isaku.yamahata@...ux.intel.com>, Hang Yuan <hang.yuan@...el.com>, 
	Bo Chen <chen.bo@...el.com>, "sagis@...gle.com" <sagis@...gle.com>, 
	"isaku.yamahata@...il.com" <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>, Erdem Aktas <erdemaktas@...gle.com>, 
	"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>, 
	Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>, 
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 037/130] KVM: TDX: Make KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS backend specific

On Thu, May 30, 2024, Kai Huang wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-05-29 at 16:15 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > In the unlikely event there is a legitimate reason for max_vcpus_per_td being
> > less than KVM's minimum, then we can update KVM's minimum as needed.  But AFAICT,
> > that's purely theoretical at this point, i.e. this is all much ado about nothing.
> 
> I am afraid we already have a legitimate case: TD partitioning.  Isaku
> told me the 'max_vcpus_per_td' is lowed to 512 for the modules with TD
> partitioning supported.  And again this is static, i.e., doesn't require
> TD partitioning to be opt-in to low to 512.

So what's Intel's plan for use cases that creates TDs with >512 vCPUs?

> So AFAICT this isn't a theoretical thing now.
> 
> Also, I want to say I was wrong about "MAX_VCPUS" in the TD_PARAMS is part
> of attestation.  It is not.  TDREPORT dosen't include the "MAX_VCPUS", and
> it is not involved in the calculation of the measurement of the guest.
> 
> Given "MAX_VCPUS" is not part of attestation, I think there's no need to
> allow user to change kvm->max_vcpus by enabling KVM_ENABLE_CAP ioctl() for
> KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS.

Sure, but KVM would still need to advertise the reduced value for KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS
when queried via KVM_CHECK_EXTENSION.  And userspace needs to be conditioned to
do a VM-scoped check, not a system-scoped check.

> So we could just once for all adjust kvm->max_vcpus for TDX in the
> tdx_vm_init() for TDX guest:
> 
> 	kvm->max_vcpus = min(kvm->max_vcpus, tdx_info->max_vcpus_per_td);
> 
> AFAICT no other change is needed.
> 
> And in KVM_TDX_VM_INIT (where TDH.MNG.INIT is done) we can just use kvm-
> >max_vcpus to fill the "MAX_VCPUS" in TD_PARAMS.