linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kexec_core: Accept unaccepted kexec destination addresses

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: <ZxmUU9riSUYmodGU@yzhao56-desk.sh.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 08:26:59 +0800
From: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, "Kirill A. Shutemov"
	<kirill@...temov.name>, <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev>,
	<x86@...nel.org>, <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
	<kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kexec_core: Accept unaccepted kexec destination addresses

On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 08:15:13AM +0800, Yan Zhao wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 10:44:11AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name> writes:
> > 
> > > Waiting minutes to get VM booted to shell is not feasible for most
> > > deployments. Lazy is sane default to me.
> > 
> > Huh?
> > 
> > Unless my guesses about what is happening are wrong lazy is hiding
> > a serious implementation deficiency.  From all hardware I have seen
> > taking minutes is absolutely ridiculous.
> > 
> > Does writing to all of memory at full speed take minutes?  How can such
> > a system be functional?
> > 
> > If you don't actually have to write to the pages and it is just some
> > accounting function it is even more ridiculous.
> > 
> > 
> > I had previously thought that accept_memory was the firmware call.
> > Now that I see that it is just a wrapper for some hardware specific
> > calls I am even more perplexed.
> > 
> > 
> > Quite honestly what this looks like to me is that someone failed to
> > enable write-combining or write-back caching when writing to memory
> > when initializing the protected memory.  With the result that everything
> > is moving dog slow, and people are introducing complexity left and write
> > to avoid that bad implementation.
> > 
> > 
> > Can someone please explain to me why this accept_memory stuff has to be
> > slow, why it has to take minutes to do it's job.
> This kexec patch is a fix to a guest(TD)'s kexce failure.
> 
> For a linux guest, the accept_memory() happens before the guest accesses a page.
> It will (if the guest is a TD)
> (1) trigger the host to allocate the physical page on host to map the accessed
                                                                        ^^^^^^^^
s/accessed/specified

>     guest page, which might be slow with wait and sleep involved, depending on
>     the memory pressure on host.
> (2) initializing the protected page.
> 
> Actually most of guest memory are not accessed by guest during the guest life
> cycle. accept_memory() may cause the host to commit a never-to-be-used page,
> with the host physical page not even being able to get swapped out.
> 
> That's why we need a lazy accept, which does not accept_memory() until after a
> page is allocated by the kernel (in alloc_page(s)).
> 
> > I would much rather spend my time figuring out how to make accept_memory
> > run at a reasonable speed than to litter the kernel with more of this
> > nonsense.
> > 
> > Eric