linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 08/21] KVM: TDX: Increase/decrease folio ref for huge pages

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: <CAGtprH9DNVBTMZJuDQEHYBRJqUfWQJgv-2cveXqdE=TSAvp0fA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 14:47:27 -0700
From: Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@...gle.com>
To: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
Cc: "ackerleytng@...gle.com" <ackerleytng@...gle.com>, "Zhao, Yan Y" <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>, 
	"Shutemov, Kirill" <kirill.shutemov@...el.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>, "vbabka@...e.cz" <vbabka@...e.cz>, 
	"quic_eberman@...cinc.com" <quic_eberman@...cinc.com>, "michael.roth@....com" <michael.roth@....com>, 
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>, 
	"Peng, Chao P" <chao.p.peng@...el.com>, "Du, Fan" <fan.du@...el.com>, 
	"Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>, "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>, 
	"binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com" <binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com>, "Weiny, Ira" <ira.weiny@...el.com>, 
	"Li, Zhiquan1" <zhiquan1.li@...el.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 08/21] KVM: TDX: Increase/decrease folio ref for huge pages

On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 10:55 AM Edgecombe, Rick P
<rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2025-06-30 at 19:13 +0800, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > > > ok! Lets go f/g. Unless Yan objects.
> > I'm ok with f/g. But I have two implementation specific questions:
> >
> > 1. How to set the HWPoison bit in TDX?
> > 2. Should we set this bit for non-guest-memfd pages (e.g. for S-EPT pages) ?
>
> Argh, I guess we can keep the existing ref count based approach for the other
> types of TDX owned pages?
>
> >
> > TDX can't invoke memory_failure() on error of removing guest private pages or
> > S-EPT pages, because holding write mmu_lock is regarded as in atomic context.
> > As there's a mutex in memory_failure(),
> > "BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/mutex.c"
> > will be printed.
> >
> > If TDX invokes memory_failure_queue() instead, looks guest_memfd can invoke
> > memory_failure_queue_kick() to ensure HWPoison bit is set timely.
> > But which component could invoke memory_failure_queue_kick() for S-EPT pages?
> > KVM?
>
> Hmm, it only has queue of 10 pages per-cpu. If something goes wrong in the TDX
> module, I could see exceeding this during a zap operation. At which point, how
> much have we really handled it?
>
>
> But, at the risk of derailing the solution when we are close, some reflection
> has made me question whether this is all misprioritized. We are trying to handle
> a case where a TDX module bug may return an error when we try to release gmem
> pages. For that, this solution is feeling way too complex.
>
> If there is a TDX module bug, a simpler way to handle it would be to fix the
> bug. In the meantime the kernel can take simpler, more drastic efforts to
> reclaim the memory and ensure system stability.
>
> In the host kexec patches we need to handle a kexec while the TDX module is
> running. The solution is to simply wbinvd on each pCPU that might have entered
> the TDX module. After that, barring no new SEAMCALLs that could dirty
> memory, the pages are free to use by the next kernel. (at least on systems
> without the partial write errata)
>
> So for this we can do something similar. Have the arch/x86 side of TDX grow a
> new tdx_buggy_shutdown(). Have it do an all-cpu IPI to kick CPUs out of
> SEAMMODE, wbivnd, and set a "no more seamcalls" bool. Then any SEAMCALLs after
> that will return a TDX_BUGGY_SHUTDOWN error, or similar. All TDs in the system
> die. Zap/cleanup paths return success in the buggy shutdown case.

This approach makes sense to me.

>
> Does it fit? Or, can you guys argue that the failures here are actually non-
> special cases that are worth more complex recovery? I remember we talked about
> IOMMU patterns that are similar, but it seems like the remaining cases under
> discussion are about TDX bugs.
>