linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 06/21] KVM: TDX: Assert the reclaimed pages were mapped as expected

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: <846bfd9ba7a3a2c6feb2d74b07c8cb1b42dcd323.camel@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 19:25:29 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>, "seanjc@...gle.com"
	<seanjc@...gle.com>, "Zhao, Yan Y" <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
CC: "Shutemov, Kirill" <kirill.shutemov@...el.com>, "quic_eberman@...cinc.com"
	<quic_eberman@...cinc.com>, "Li, Xiaoyao" <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>,
	"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "Hansen, Dave"
	<dave.hansen@...el.com>, "david@...hat.com" <david@...hat.com>,
	"thomas.lendacky@....com" <thomas.lendacky@....com>, "tabba@...gle.com"
	<tabba@...gle.com>, "Li, Zhiquan1" <zhiquan1.li@...el.com>, "Du, Fan"
	<fan.du@...el.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "michael.roth@....com"
	<michael.roth@....com>, "Weiny, Ira" <ira.weiny@...el.com>, "vbabka@...e.cz"
	<vbabka@...e.cz>, "binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com" <binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com>,
	"ackerleytng@...gle.com" <ackerleytng@...gle.com>, "Yamahata, Isaku"
	<isaku.yamahata@...el.com>, "Peng, Chao P" <chao.p.peng@...el.com>,
	"Annapurve, Vishal" <vannapurve@...gle.com>, "jroedel@...e.de"
	<jroedel@...e.de>, "Miao, Jun" <jun.miao@...el.com>, "pgonda@...gle.com"
	<pgonda@...gle.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 06/21] KVM: TDX: Assert the reclaimed pages were
 mapped as expected

On Thu, 2025-04-24 at 11:05 +0800, Yan Zhao wrote:
>  /* TDH.PHYMEM.PAGE.RECLAIM is allowed only when destroying the TD. */
> -static int __tdx_reclaim_page(struct page *page)
> +static int __tdx_reclaim_page(struct page *page, int level)
>  {
>  	u64 err, tdx_pt, tdx_owner, tdx_size;
>  
> @@ -340,16 +340,18 @@ static int __tdx_reclaim_page(struct page *page)
>  		pr_tdx_error_3(TDH_PHYMEM_PAGE_RECLAIM, err, tdx_pt, tdx_owner, tdx_size);
>  		return -EIO;
>  	}
> +
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(tdx_size != pg_level_to_tdx_sept_level(level));

Why not return an error in this case?

>  	return 0;
>  }
>  

No callers in the series pass anything other than PG_LEVEL_4K, so do we need
this patch?