linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] SEPT SEAMCALL retry proposal

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: <de7bc23ec1e40ad880c053f884200b4870e18986.camel@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 17:00:55 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "pbonzini@...hat.com"
	<pbonzini@...hat.com>, "seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>, "Zhao, Yan Y"
	<yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
CC: "isaku.yamahata@...il.com" <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>, "x86@...nel.org"
	<x86@...nel.org>, "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com"
	<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com"
	<binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com>, "Li, Xiaoyao" <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>, "Chatre,
 Reinette" <reinette.chatre@...el.com>, "Hunter, Adrian"
	<adrian.hunter@...el.com>, "Lindgren, Tony" <tony.lindgren@...el.com>,
	"dmatlack@...gle.com" <dmatlack@...gle.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
	"Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>, "nik.borisov@...e.com"
	<nik.borisov@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] SEPT SEAMCALL retry proposal

On Thu, 2024-11-21 at 19:51 +0800, Yan Zhao wrote:
> This SEPT SEAMCALL retry proposal aims to remove patch
> "[HACK] KVM: TDX: Retry seamcall when TDX_OPERAND_BUSY with operand SEPT"
> [1] at the tail of v2 series "TDX MMU Part 2".

We discussed this on the PUCK call. A couple alternatives were considered:
 - Avoiding 0-step. To handle signals kicking to userspace we could try to add
code to generate synthetic EPT violations if KVM thinks the 0-step mitigation
might be active (i.e. the fault was not resolved). The consensus was that this
would be continuing battle and possibly impossible due normal guest behavior
triggering the mitigation. 
 - Pre-faulting all S-EPT, such that contention with AUG won't happen. The
discussion was that this would only be a temporary solution as the MMU
operations get more complicated (huge pages, etc). Also there is also
private/shared conversions and memory hotplug already.

So we will proceed with this kick+lock+retry solution. The reasoning is to
optimize for the normal non-contention path, without having an overly
complicated solution for KVM.

In all the branch commotion recently, these patches fell out of our dev branch.
So we just recently integrated then into a 6.13 kvm-coco-queue based branch. We
need to perform some regression tests based on 6.13 TDP MMU changes. Assuming no
issues, we can post the 6.13 rebase to included in kvm-coco-queue with
instructions on which patches to remove from kvm-coco-queue (i.e. the 16
retries).

We also briefly touched on the TDX module behavior where guest operations can
lock NP PTEs. The kick solution doesn't require changing this functionally, but
it should still be done to help with debugging issues related to KVM's
contention solution.

Thanks all for the discussion!