linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 30/39] KVM: guest_memfd: Handle folio preparation for guest

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: <ZwWIRW7zoX2PBsnF@google.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 12:30:13 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Ackerley Tng <ackerleytng@...gle.com>
Cc: quic_eberman@...cinc.com, tabba@...gle.com, roypat@...zon.co.uk, 
	jgg@...dia.com, peterx@...hat.com, david@...hat.com, rientjes@...gle.com, 
	fvdl@...gle.com, jthoughton@...gle.com, pbonzini@...hat.com, 
	zhiquan1.li@...el.com, fan.du@...el.com, jun.miao@...el.com, 
	isaku.yamahata@...el.com, muchun.song@...ux.dev, mike.kravetz@...cle.com, 
	erdemaktas@...gle.com, vannapurve@...gle.com, qperret@...gle.com, 
	jhubbard@...dia.com, willy@...radead.org, shuah@...nel.org, 
	brauner@...nel.org, bfoster@...hat.com, kent.overstreet@...ux.dev, 
	pvorel@...e.cz, rppt@...nel.org, richard.weiyang@...il.com, 
	anup@...infault.org, haibo1.xu@...el.com, ajones@...tanamicro.com, 
	vkuznets@...hat.com, maciej.wieczor-retman@...el.com, pgonda@...gle.com, 
	oliver.upton@...ux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 30/39] KVM: guest_memfd: Handle folio preparation for
 guest_memfd mmap

On Thu, Oct 03, 2024, Ackerley Tng wrote:
> Ackerley Tng <ackerleytng@...gle.com> writes:
> 
> > Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@...cinc.com> writes:
> >> From x86 CoCo perspective, I think it also makes sense to not zero
> >> the folio when changing faultiblity from private to shared:
> >>  - If guest is sharing some data with host, you've wiped the data and
> >>    guest has to copy again.
> >>  - Or, if SEV/TDX enforces that page is zero'd between transitions,
> >>    Linux has duplicated the work that trusted entity has already done.
> >>
> >> Fuad and I can help add some details for the conversion. Hopefully we
> >> can figure out some of the plan at plumbers this week.
> >
> > Zeroing the page prevents leaking host data (see function docstring for
> > kvm_gmem_prepare_folio() introduced in [1]), so we definitely don't want
> > to introduce a kernel data leak bug here.
> 
> Actually it seems like filemap_grab_folio() already gets a zeroed page.
> 
> filemap_grab_folio() eventually calls __alloc_pages_noprof()
> -> get_page_from_freelist()
>    -> prep_new_page()
>       -> post_alloc_hook()
> 
> and post_alloc_hook() calls kernel_init_pages(), which zeroes the page,
> depending on kernel config.
> 
> Paolo, was calling clear_highpage() in kvm_gmem_prepare_folio() zeroing an
> already empty page returned from filemap_grab_folio()?

Yes and no.  CONFIG_INIT_ON_ALLOC_DEFAULT_ON and init_on_alloc are very much
hardening features, not functional behavior that other code _needs_ to be aware
of.  E.g. enabling init-on-alloc comes with a measurable performance cost.

Ignoring hardening, the guest_memfd mapping specifically sets the gfp_mask to
GFP_HIGHUSER, i.e. doesn't set __GFP_ZERO.

That said, I wouldn't be opposed to skipping the clear_highpage() call when
want_init_on_alloc() is true.

Also, the intended behavior (or at least, what  intended) of kvm_gmem_prepare_folio()
was it would do clear_highpage() if and only if a trusted entity does NOT zero
the page.  Factoring that in is a bit harder, as it probably requires another
arch hook (or providing an out-param from kvm_arch_gmem_prepare()).  I.e. the
want_init_on_alloc() case isn't the only time KVM could shave cycles by not
redundantly zeroing memory.