linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 02/12] KVM: x86/mmu: Add dedicated API to map guest

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aLTrNpsdN6KMXjzL@yzhao56-desk.sh.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2025 08:39:18 +0800
From: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, Rick P Edgecombe
	<rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>, "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Vishal Annapurve
	<vannapurve@...gle.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "michael.roth@....com"
	<michael.roth@....com>, Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 02/12] KVM: x86/mmu: Add dedicated API to map
 guest_memfd pfn into TDP MMU

On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 09:16:47AM +0800, Yan Zhao wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 12:40:20PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2025, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 09:26:50AM +0800, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2025-08-27 at 17:54 -0700, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Then, what about setting
> > > > > >                 .max_level = PG_LEVEL_4K,
> > > > > > directly?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Otherwise, the "(KVM_BUG_ON(level != PG_LEVEL_4K, kvm)" would be triggered
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > tdx_sept_set_private_spte().
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yes this fails to boot a TD. With max_level = PG_LEVEL_4K it passes the full
> > > > > tests. I don't think it's ideal to encode PAGE.ADD details here though.
> > > > > 
> > > > > But I'm not immediately clear what is going wrong. The old struct
> > > > > kvm_page_fault
> > > > > looks pretty similar. Did you root cause it?
> > > >
> > > > Oh, duh. Because we are passing in the PFN now so it can't know the size. So
> > > > it's not about PAGE.ADD actually.
> > > Right, it's because the previous kvm_tdp_map_page() updates fault->max_level in
> > > kvm_mmu_faultin_pfn_private() by checking the private_max_mapping_level hook.
> > > 
> > > However, private_max_mapping_level() skips the faultin step and goes straight
> > > to kvm_tdp_mmu_map().
> > > 
> > > > Sill, how about calling the function kvm_tdp_mmu_map_private_pfn_4k(), or
> > > > passing in the level?
> > > Looks [1] can also address this issue. Not sure which one Sean prefers.
> > > 
> > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250729225455.670324-15-seanjc@google.com
> > 
> > That won't fix this issue though, becuase @fault will be valid and so max_level
> Ah, right, I missed that you composed a fault...
FWIW: after reviewing it again, I think [1] is still able update the max_level
to 4KB.

The flow with a valid @fault:

kvm_mmu_hugepage_adjust
  kvm_mmu_max_mapping_level
    kvm_max_private_mapping_level
      kvm_x86_call(gmem_max_mapping_level)(kvm, pfn);
 

> > will still be KVM_MAX_HUGEPAGE_LEVEL.  Which is by design, the intent in that
> > flow is that KVM should have gotten the level when getting the pfn from gmem.
> > 
> > IIUC, this particular flow _must_ map at 4KiB, so I think forcing PG_LEVEL_4k is
> > the right solution.
> Forcing PG_LEVEL_4k looks good to me.
> I was worried that SEV might want to use higher levels.