Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC 45/62] mm: Add the encrypt_mprotect() system call for
 MKTME
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Kai Huang <kai.huang@linux.intel.com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>,
        Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, kvm list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        keyrings@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
References: <20190508144422.13171-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <20190508144422.13171-46-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <CALCETrVCdp4LyCasvGkc0+S6fvS+dna=_ytLdDPuD2xeAr5c-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <3c658cce-7b7e-7d45-59a0-e17dae986713@intel.com>
 <CALCETrUPSv4Xae3iO+2i_HecJLfx4mqFfmtfp+cwBdab8JUZrg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Autocrypt: addr=dave.hansen@intel.com; keydata=
 mQINBE6HMP0BEADIMA3XYkQfF3dwHlj58Yjsc4E5y5G67cfbt8dvaUq2fx1lR0K9h1bOI6fC
 oAiUXvGAOxPDsB/P6UEOISPpLl5IuYsSwAeZGkdQ5g6m1xq7AlDJQZddhr/1DC/nMVa/2BoY
 2UnKuZuSBu7lgOE193+7Uks3416N2hTkyKUSNkduyoZ9F5twiBhxPJwPtn/wnch6n5RsoXsb
 ygOEDxLEsSk/7eyFycjE+btUtAWZtx+HseyaGfqkZK0Z9bT1lsaHecmB203xShwCPT49Blxz
 VOab8668QpaEOdLGhtvrVYVK7x4skyT3nGWcgDCl5/Vp3TWA4K+IofwvXzX2ON/Mj7aQwf5W
 iC+3nWC7q0uxKwwsddJ0Nu+dpA/UORQWa1NiAftEoSpk5+nUUi0WE+5DRm0H+TXKBWMGNCFn
 c6+EKg5zQaa8KqymHcOrSXNPmzJuXvDQ8uj2J8XuzCZfK4uy1+YdIr0yyEMI7mdh4KX50LO1
 pmowEqDh7dLShTOif/7UtQYrzYq9cPnjU2ZW4qd5Qz2joSGTG9eCXLz5PRe5SqHxv6ljk8mb
 ApNuY7bOXO/A7T2j5RwXIlcmssqIjBcxsRRoIbpCwWWGjkYjzYCjgsNFL6rt4OL11OUF37wL
 QcTl7fbCGv53KfKPdYD5hcbguLKi/aCccJK18ZwNjFhqr4MliQARAQABtEVEYXZpZCBDaHJp
 c3RvcGhlciBIYW5zZW4gKEludGVsIFdvcmsgQWRkcmVzcykgPGRhdmUuaGFuc2VuQGludGVs
 LmNvbT6JAjgEEwECACIFAlQ+9J0CGwMGCwkIBwMCBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEGg1
 lTBwyZKwLZUP/0dnbhDc229u2u6WtK1s1cSd9WsflGXGagkR6liJ4um3XCfYWDHvIdkHYC1t
 MNcVHFBwmQkawxsYvgO8kXT3SaFZe4ISfB4K4CL2qp4JO+nJdlFUbZI7cz/Td9z8nHjMcWYF
 IQuTsWOLs/LBMTs+ANumibtw6UkiGVD3dfHJAOPNApjVr+M0P/lVmTeP8w0uVcd2syiaU5jB
 aht9CYATn+ytFGWZnBEEQFnqcibIaOrmoBLu2b3fKJEd8Jp7NHDSIdrvrMjYynmc6sZKUqH2
 I1qOevaa8jUg7wlLJAWGfIqnu85kkqrVOkbNbk4TPub7VOqA6qG5GCNEIv6ZY7HLYd/vAkVY
 E8Plzq/NwLAuOWxvGrOl7OPuwVeR4hBDfcrNb990MFPpjGgACzAZyjdmYoMu8j3/MAEW4P0z
 F5+EYJAOZ+z212y1pchNNauehORXgjrNKsZwxwKpPY9qb84E3O9KYpwfATsqOoQ6tTgr+1BR
 CCwP712H+E9U5HJ0iibN/CDZFVPL1bRerHziuwuQuvE0qWg0+0SChFe9oq0KAwEkVs6ZDMB2
 P16MieEEQ6StQRlvy2YBv80L1TMl3T90Bo1UUn6ARXEpcbFE0/aORH/jEXcRteb+vuik5UGY
 5TsyLYdPur3TXm7XDBdmmyQVJjnJKYK9AQxj95KlXLVO38lcuQINBFRjzmoBEACyAxbvUEhd
 GDGNg0JhDdezyTdN8C9BFsdxyTLnSH31NRiyp1QtuxvcqGZjb2trDVuCbIzRrgMZLVgo3upr
 MIOx1CXEgmn23Zhh0EpdVHM8IKx9Z7V0r+rrpRWFE8/wQZngKYVi49PGoZj50ZEifEJ5qn/H
 Nsp2+Y+bTUjDdgWMATg9DiFMyv8fvoqgNsNyrrZTnSgoLzdxr89FGHZCoSoAK8gfgFHuO54B
 lI8QOfPDG9WDPJ66HCodjTlBEr/Cwq6GruxS5i2Y33YVqxvFvDa1tUtl+iJ2SWKS9kCai2DR
 3BwVONJEYSDQaven/EHMlY1q8Vln3lGPsS11vSUK3QcNJjmrgYxH5KsVsf6PNRj9mp8Z1kIG
 qjRx08+nnyStWC0gZH6NrYyS9rpqH3j+hA2WcI7De51L4Rv9pFwzp161mvtc6eC/GxaiUGuH
 BNAVP0PY0fqvIC68p3rLIAW3f97uv4ce2RSQ7LbsPsimOeCo/5vgS6YQsj83E+AipPr09Caj
 0hloj+hFoqiticNpmsxdWKoOsV0PftcQvBCCYuhKbZV9s5hjt9qn8CE86A5g5KqDf83Fxqm/
 vXKgHNFHE5zgXGZnrmaf6resQzbvJHO0Fb0CcIohzrpPaL3YepcLDoCCgElGMGQjdCcSQ+Ci
 FCRl0Bvyj1YZUql+ZkptgGjikQARAQABiQIfBBgBAgAJBQJUY85qAhsMAAoJEGg1lTBwyZKw
 l4IQAIKHs/9po4spZDFyfDjunimEhVHqlUt7ggR1Hsl/tkvTSze8pI1P6dGp2XW6AnH1iayn
 yRcoyT0ZJ+Zmm4xAH1zqKjWplzqdb/dO28qk0bPso8+1oPO8oDhLm1+tY+cOvufXkBTm+whm
 +AyNTjaCRt6aSMnA/QHVGSJ8grrTJCoACVNhnXg/R0g90g8iV8Q+IBZyDkG0tBThaDdw1B2l
 asInUTeb9EiVfL/Zjdg5VWiF9LL7iS+9hTeVdR09vThQ/DhVbCNxVk+DtyBHsjOKifrVsYep
 WpRGBIAu3bK8eXtyvrw1igWTNs2wazJ71+0z2jMzbclKAyRHKU9JdN6Hkkgr2nPb561yjcB8
 sIq1pFXKyO+nKy6SZYxOvHxCcjk2fkw6UmPU6/j/nQlj2lfOAgNVKuDLothIxzi8pndB8Jju
 KktE5HJqUUMXePkAYIxEQ0mMc8Po7tuXdejgPMwgP7x65xtfEqI0RuzbUioFltsp1jUaRwQZ
 MTsCeQDdjpgHsj+P2ZDeEKCbma4m6Ez/YWs4+zDm1X8uZDkZcfQlD9NldbKDJEXLIjYWo1PH
 hYepSffIWPyvBMBTW2W5FRjJ4vLRrJSUoEfJuPQ3vW9Y73foyo/qFoURHO48AinGPZ7PC7TF
 vUaNOTjKedrqHkaOcqB185ahG2had0xnFsDPlx5y
Message-ID: <5cbfa2da-ba2e-ed91-d0e8-add67753fc12@intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 Jun 2019 11:27:59 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrUPSv4Xae3iO+2i_HecJLfx4mqFfmtfp+cwBdab8JUZrg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Tom Lendacky, could you take a look down in the message to the talk of
SEV?  I want to make sure I'm not misrepresenting what it does today.
...


>> I actually don't care all that much which one we end up with.  It's not
>> like the extra syscall in the second options means much.
> 
> The benefit of the second one is that, if sys_encrypt is absent, it
> just works.  In the first model, programs need a fallback because
> they'll segfault of mprotect_encrypt() gets ENOSYS.

Well, by the time they get here, they would have already had to allocate
and set up the encryption key.  I don't think this would really be the
"normal" malloc() path, for instance.

>>  How do we
>> eventually stack it on top of persistent memory filesystems or Device
>> DAX?
> 
> How do we stack anonymous memory on top of persistent memory or Device
> DAX?  I'm confused.

If our interface to MKTME is:

	fd = open("/dev/mktme");
	ptr = mmap(fd);

Then it's hard to combine with an interface which is:

	fd = open("/dev/dax123");
	ptr = mmap(fd);

Where if we have something like mprotect() (or madvise() or something
else taking pointer), we can just do:

	fd = open("/dev/anything987");
	ptr = mmap(fd);
	sys_encrypt(ptr);

Now, we might not *do* it that way for dax, for instance, but I'm just
saying that if we go the /dev/mktme route, we never get a choice.

> I think that, in the long run, we're going to have to either expand
> the core mm's concept of what "memory" is or just have a whole
> parallel set of mechanisms for memory that doesn't work like memory.
...
> I expect that some day normal memory will  be able to be repurposed as
> SGX pages on the fly, and that will also look a lot more like SEV or
> XPFO than like the this model of MKTME.

I think you're drawing the line at pages where the kernel can manage
contents vs. not manage contents.  I'm not sure that's the right
distinction to make, though.  The thing that is important is whether the
kernel can manage the lifetime and location of the data in the page.

Basically: Can the kernel choose where the page comes from and get the
page back when it wants?

I really don't like the current state of things like with SEV or with
KVM direct device assignment where the physical location is quite locked
down and the kernel really can't manage the memory.  I'm trying really
hard to make sure future hardware is more permissive about such things.
 My hope is that these are a temporary blip and not the new normal.

> So, if we upstream MKTME as anonymous memory with a magic config
> syscall, I predict that, in a few years, it will be end up inheriting
> all downsides of both approaches with few of the upsides.  Programs
> like QEMU will need to learn to manipulate pages that can't be
> accessed outside the VM without special VM buy-in, so the fact that
> MKTME pages are fully functional and can be GUP-ed won't be very
> useful.  And the VM will learn about all these things, but MKTME won't
> really fit in.

Kai Huang (who is on cc) has been doing the QEMU enabling and might want
to weigh in.  I'd also love to hear from the AMD folks in case I'm not
grokking some aspect of SEV.

But, my understanding is that, even today, neither QEMU nor the kernel
can see SEV-encrypted guest memory.  So QEMU should already understand
how to not interact with guest memory.  I _assume_ it's also already
doing this with anonymous memory, without needing /dev/sme or something.

> And, one of these days, someone will come up with a version of XPFO
> that could actually be upstreamed, and it seems entirely plausible
> that it will be totally incompatible with MKTME-as-anonymous-memory
> and that users of MKTME will actually get *worse* security.

I'm not following here.  XPFO just means that we don't keep the direct
map around all the time for all memory.  If XPFO and
MKTME-as-anonymous-memory were both in play, I think we'd just be
creating/destroying the MKTME-enlightened direct map instead of a
vanilla one.