| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <0aa553fc-88ca-4ca6-8797-2d98e9286272@linux.microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 13:46:37 +0530
From: Naman Jain <namjain@...ux.microsoft.com>
To: Nuno Das Neves <nunodasneves@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Stanislav Kinsburskii <skinsburskii@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc: "K . Y . Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>, Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>,
Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>, Roman Kisel <romank@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Anirudh Rayabharam <anrayabh@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Saurabh Sengar <ssengar@...ux.microsoft.com>,
ALOK TIWARI <alok.a.tiwari@...cle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] Drivers: hv: Introduce mshv_vtl driver
On 5/23/2025 12:45 AM, Nuno Das Neves wrote:
> On 5/21/2025 2:32 AM, Naman Jain wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 5/21/2025 11:33 AM, Naman Jain wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/21/2025 12:25 AM, Stanislav Kinsburskii wrote:
>>>> On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 10:26:42AM +0530, Naman Jain wrote:
>>>>> Provide an interface for Virtual Machine Monitor like OpenVMM and its
>>>>> use as OpenHCL paravisor to control VTL0 (Virtual trust Level).
>>>>> Expose devices and support IOCTLs for features like VTL creation,
>>>>> VTL0 memory management, context switch, making hypercalls,
>>>>> mapping VTL0 address space to VTL2 userspace, getting new VMBus
>>>>> messages and channel events in VTL2 etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Co-developed-by: Roman Kisel <romank@...ux.microsoft.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Roman Kisel <romank@...ux.microsoft.com>
>>>>> Co-developed-by: Saurabh Sengar <ssengar@...ux.microsoft.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Saurabh Sengar <ssengar@...ux.microsoft.com>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Roman Kisel <romank@...ux.microsoft.com>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Alok Tiwari <alok.a.tiwari@...cle.com>
>>>>> Message-ID: <20250512140432.2387503-3-namjain@...ux.microsoft.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Naman Jain <namjain@...ux.microsoft.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/hv/Kconfig | 20 +
>>>>> drivers/hv/Makefile | 7 +-
>>>>> drivers/hv/mshv_vtl.h | 52 +
>>>>> drivers/hv/mshv_vtl_main.c | 1783 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> include/hyperv/hvgdk_mini.h | 81 ++
>>>>> include/hyperv/hvhdk.h | 1 +
>>>>> include/uapi/linux/mshv.h | 82 ++
>>>>> 7 files changed, 2025 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/hv/mshv_vtl.h
>>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/hv/mshv_vtl_main.c
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/hv/Kconfig b/drivers/hv/Kconfig
>>>>> index eefa0b559b73..21cee5564d70 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/hv/Kconfig
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/hv/Kconfig
>>>>> @@ -72,4 +72,24 @@ config MSHV_ROOT
>>>>> If unsure, say N.
>>>>> +config MSHV_VTL
>>>>> + tristate "Microsoft Hyper-V VTL driver"
>>>>> + depends on HYPERV && X86_64
>>>>> + depends on TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
>>>>
>>>> Why does it depend on TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for reviewing. This config is required for below functions which
>>> are used for mshv_vtl_low device.
>>>
>>> vm_fault_t mshv_vtl_low_huge_fault ->
>>> * vmf_insert_pfn_pmd
>>> * vmf_insert_pfn_pud
>>>
>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/include/hyperv/hvgdk_mini.h b/include/hyperv/hvgdk_mini.h
>>>>> index 1be7f6a02304..cc11000e39f4 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/hyperv/hvgdk_mini.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/hyperv/hvgdk_mini.h
>>>>> @@ -882,6 +882,23 @@ struct hv_get_vp_from_apic_id_in {
>>>>> u32 apic_ids[];
>>>>> } __packed;
>>>>> +union hv_register_vsm_partition_config {
>>>>> + __u64 as_u64;
>>>>
>>>> Please, follow the file pattern: as_u64 -> as_uint64
>>>>
>>>>> + struct {
>>>>> + __u64 enable_vtl_protection : 1;
>>>>
>>>> Ditto: __u64 -> u64
>>>>
>>>>> + __u64 default_vtl_protection_mask : 4;
>>>>> + __u64 zero_memory_on_reset : 1;
>>>>> + __u64 deny_lower_vtl_startup : 1;
>>>>> + __u64 intercept_acceptance : 1;
>>>>> + __u64 intercept_enable_vtl_protection : 1;
>>>>> + __u64 intercept_vp_startup : 1;
>>>>> + __u64 intercept_cpuid_unimplemented : 1;
>>>>> + __u64 intercept_unrecoverable_exception : 1;
>>>>> + __u64 intercept_page : 1;
>>>>> + __u64 mbz : 51;
>>>>> + };
>>>>> +};
>>>>> +
>>>>> /*
>>>>> diff --git a/include/hyperv/hvhdk.h b/include/hyperv/hvhdk.h
>>>>> index b4067ada02cf..9b890126e8e8 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/hyperv/hvhdk.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/hyperv/hvhdk.h
>>>>> @@ -479,6 +479,7 @@ struct hv_connection_info {
>>>>> #define HV_EVENT_FLAGS_COUNT (256 * 8)
>>>>> #define HV_EVENT_FLAGS_BYTE_COUNT (256)
>>>>> #define HV_EVENT_FLAGS32_COUNT (256 / sizeof(u32))
>>>>> +#define HV_EVENT_FLAGS_LONG_COUNT (HV_EVENT_FLAGS_BYTE_COUNT / sizeof(__u64))
>>>>
>>>> Ditto
>>>>
>>>>> /* linux side we create long version of flags to use long bit ops on flags */
>>>>> #define HV_EVENT_FLAGS_UL_COUNT (256 / sizeof(ulong))
>>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/mshv.h b/include/uapi/linux/mshv.h
>>>>> index 876bfe4e4227..a8c39b08b39a 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/mshv.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/mshv.h
>>>>> @@ -288,4 +288,86 @@ struct mshv_get_set_vp_state {
>>>>> * #define MSHV_ROOT_HVCALL _IOWR(MSHV_IOCTL, 0x07, struct mshv_root_hvcall)
>>>>> */
>>>>> +/* Structure definitions, macros and IOCTLs for mshv_vtl */
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#define MSHV_CAP_CORE_API_STABLE 0x0
>>>>> +#define MSHV_CAP_REGISTER_PAGE 0x1
>>>>> +#define MSHV_CAP_VTL_RETURN_ACTION 0x2
>>>>> +#define MSHV_CAP_DR6_SHARED 0x3
>>>>> +#define MSHV_MAX_RUN_MSG_SIZE 256
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#define MSHV_VP_MAX_REGISTERS 128
>>>>> +
>>>>> +struct mshv_vp_registers {
>>>>> + __u32 count; /* at most MSHV_VP_MAX_REGISTERS */
>>>>
>>>> Same here: __u{32,64} -> u{32,64}.
>>>>
>>>> Please, address everywhere.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'll take care of all of these in my next patch.
>>>
>>
>>
>> One concern about this change in include/uapi/linux/mshv.h.
>> I see the convention of using '__' family of data types in this file.
>> Whatever we do here, will be applicable to existing code as well.
>> Do you suggest we should change it to u{32,64} variants or keep
>> it in current form?
>>
>
> uapi code uses the '__' versions of these types, so they should stay
> as they are.
>
> Thanks
> Nuno
Thanks Nuno. Acked.
Regards,
Naman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists