linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 09/10] KVM: arm64: Stage-2 huge mappings for np-guests

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: <aCtBWPe9Vjy04Srg@google.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 14:34:00 +0000
From: Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc: Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@...gle.com>, oliver.upton@...ux.dev,
	joey.gouly@....com, suzuki.poulose@....com, yuzenghui@...wei.com,
	catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 09/10] KVM: arm64: Stage-2 huge mappings for np-guests

On Friday 16 May 2025 at 14:28:27 (+0100), Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Fri, 09 May 2025 14:17:05 +0100,
> Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@...gle.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Now np-guests hypercalls with range are supported, we can let the
> > hypervisor to install block mappings whenever the Stage-1 allows it,
> > that is when backed by either Hugetlbfs or THPs. The size of those block
> > mappings is limited to PMD_SIZE.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@...gle.com>
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> > index 78fb9cea2034..97e0fea9db4e 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> > @@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ int kvm_host_prepare_stage2(void *pgt_pool_base)
> >  static bool guest_stage2_force_pte_cb(u64 addr, u64 end,
> >  				      enum kvm_pgtable_prot prot)
> >  {
> > -	return true;
> > +	return false;
> >  }
> 
> Can we get rid of this callback now? And of the .force_pte_cb field in
> the kvm_pgtable struct?

I think it is still needed for the host side -- see the comment in
host_stage2_force_pte_cb(). In short, it is not safe to put down a
RO block mapping for the host. Re-mapping one page RW in the middle of
the block for example would cause us to 'lose' the RO permission for
the 511 other pages (assuming 4K pages obv) when we zap the block and
we have no way to reconstruct that lazily as we do for guests.

One way to solve this is to teach pgtable.c to inherit the block
permission/attributes/sw bits/ ... for all the PTEs in the newly
installed table when we zap a block. That is actually quite cheap
and easy to do in particular for KVM_PGTABLE_S2_IDMAP page-tables
(a.k.a the host) -- Android does that downstream FWIW.

Thanks,
Quentin