Re: [PATCH v6 4/8] KVM: Extend the memslot to support fd-based private memory
From: Chao Peng <hidden>
Date: 2022-05-30 13:41:24
Also in:
kvm, linux-doc, linux-fsdevel, linux-mm, lkml, qemu-devel
On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 03:22:32PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2022, Chao Peng wrote:quoted
On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 06:31:02PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:quoted
On Fri, May 20, 2022, Andy Lutomirski wrote:quoted
The alternative would be to have some kind of separate table or bitmap (part of the memslot?) that tells KVM whether a GPA should map to the fd. What do you all think?My original proposal was to have expolicit shared vs. private memslots, and punch holes in KVM's memslots on conversion, but due to the way KVM (and userspace) handle memslot updates, conversions would be painfully slow. That's how we ended up with the current propsoal. But a dedicated KVM ioctl() to add/remove shared ranges would be easy to implement and wouldn't necessarily even need to interact with the memslots. It could be a consumer of memslots, e.g. if we wanted to disallow registering regions without an associated memslot, but I think we'd want to avoid even that because things will get messy during memslot updates, e.g. if dirty logging is toggled or a shared memory region is temporarily removed then we wouldn't want to destroy the tracking.Even we don't tight that to memslots, that info can only be effective for private memslot, right? Setting this ioctl to memory ranges defined in a traditional non-private memslots just makes no sense, I guess we can comment that in the API document.Hrm, applying it universally would be funky, e.g. emulated MMIO would need to be declared "shared". But, applying it selectively would arguably be worse, e.g. letting userspace map memory into the guest as shared for a region that's registered as private... On option to that mess would be to make memory shared by default, and so userspace must declare regions that are private. Then there's no weirdness with emulated MMIO or "legacy" memslots. On page fault, KVM does a lookup to see if the GPA is shared or private. If the GPA is private, but there is no memslot or the memslot doesn't have a private fd, KVM exits to userspace. If there's a memslot with a private fd, the shared/private flag is used to resolve the And to handle the ioctl(), KVM can use kvm_zap_gfn_range(), which will bump the notifier sequence, i.e. force the page fault to retry if the GPA may have been (un)registered between checking the type and acquiring mmu_lock.
Yeah, that makes sense.
quoted
quoted
I don't think we'd want to use a bitmap, e.g. for a well-behaved guest, XArray should be far more efficient.What about the mis-behaved guest? I don't want to design for the worst case, but people may raise concern on the attack from such guest.That's why cgroups exist. E.g. a malicious/broken L1 can similarly abuse nested EPT/NPT to generate a large number of shadow page tables.
I havn't seen we had that in KVM. Is there any plan/discussion to add that?
quoted
quoted
One benefit to explicitly tracking this in KVM is that it might be useful for software-only protected VMs, e.g. KVM could mark a region in the XArray as "pending" based on guest hypercalls to share/unshare memory, and then complete the transaction when userspace invokes the ioctl() to complete the share/unshare.OK, then this can be another field of states/flags/attributes. Let me dig up certain level of details: First, introduce below KVM ioctl KVM_SET_MEMORY_ATTRActually, if the semantics are that userspace declares memory as private, then we can reuse KVM_MEMORY_ENCRYPT_REG_REGION and KVM_MEMORY_ENCRYPT_UNREG_REGION. It'd be a little gross because we'd need to slightly redefine the semantics for TDX, SNP, and software-protected VM types, e.g. the ioctls() currently require a pre-exisitng memslot. But I think it'd work...
These existing ioctls looks good for TDX and probably SNP as well. For softrware-protected VM types, it may not be enough. Maybe for the first step we can reuse this for all hardware based solutions and invent new interface when software-protected solution gets really supported. There is semantics difference for fd-based private memory. Current above two ioctls() use userspace addreess(hva) while for fd-based it should be fd+offset, and probably it's better to use gpa in this case. Then we will need change existing semantics and break backward-compatibility. Chao
I'll think more on this...