On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 08:59:09AM -0700,
Sean Christopherson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2024, Michael Roth wrote:
> > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 03:50:26PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 3:47 PM Sean Christopherson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > + * Since software-protected VMs don't have a notion of a shared vs.
> > > > > + * private that's separate from what KVM is tracking, the above
> > > > > + * KVM_EXIT_MEMORY_FAULT condition wouldn't occur, so avoid the
> > > > > + * special handling for that case for now.
> > > >
> > > > Very technically, it can occur if userspace _just_ modified the attributes. And
> > > > as I've said multiple times, at least for now, I want to avoid special casing
> > > > SW-protected VMs unless it is *absolutely* necessary, because their sole purpose
> > > > is to allow testing flows that are impossible to excercise without SNP/TDX hardware.
> > >
> > > Yep, it is not like they have to be optimized.
> >
> > Ok, I thought there were maybe some future plans to use sw-protected VMs
> > to get some added protections from userspace. But even then there'd
> > probably still be extra considerations for how to handle access tracking
> > so white-listing them probably isn't right anyway.
> >
> > I was also partly tempted to take this route because it would cover this
> > TDX patch as well:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/91c797997b57056224571e22362321a23947172f.1705965635.git.isaku.yamahata@intel.com/
>
> Hmm, I'm pretty sure that patch is trying to fix the exact same issue you are
> fixing, just in a less precise way. S-EPT entries only support RWX=0 and RWX=111b,
> i.e. it should be impossible to have a write-fault to a present S-EPT entry.
>
> And if TDX is running afoul of this code:
>
> if (!fault->present)
> return !kvm_ad_enabled();
>
> then KVM should do the sane thing and require A/D support be enabled for TDX.
>
> And if it's something else entirely, that changelog has some explaining to do.
Yes, it's for KVM_EXIT_MEMORY_FAULT case. Because Secure-EPT has non-present or
all RWX allowed, fast page fault always returns RET_PF_INVALID by
is_shadow_present_pte() check.
I lightly tested the patch at [1] and it works for TDX KVM.
[1] https://github.com/mdroth/linux/commit/39643f9f6da6265d39d633a703c53997985c1208
Just in case for that patch,
Reviewed-by: Isaku Yamahata <[email protected]>
--
Isaku Yamahata <[email protected]>