Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <765f86ae-7c68-6722-c6e0-c6150ce69e59@amd.com> <20201211225542.GA30409@ashkalra_ubuntu_server>
 <20201212045603.GA27415@ashkalra_ubuntu_server> <20201218193956.GJ2956@work-vm>
 <E79E09A2-F314-4B59-B7AE-07B1D422DF2B@amd.com> <20201218195641.GL2956@work-vm>
 <20210106230555.GA13999@ashkalra_ubuntu_server> <CABayD+dQwaeCnr5_+DUpvbQ42O6cZBMO79pEEzi5WXPO=NH3iA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210107013414.GA14098@ashkalra_ubuntu_server> <20210107080513.GA16781@ashkalra_ubuntu_server>
 <20210108004756.GA17895@ashkalra_ubuntu_server>
In-Reply-To: <20210108004756.GA17895@ashkalra_ubuntu_server>
From:   Steve Rutherford <srutherford@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 7 Jan 2021 16:55:14 -0800
Message-ID: <CABayD+euSYint8H7pvwV7JFF6FonfZkdmFfbZ_kiKfYjiZTSYA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/9] KVM: x86: Add AMD SEV specific Hypercall3
To:     Ashish Kalra <ashish.kalra@amd.com>
Cc:     "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>,
        "Singh, Brijesh" <brijesh.singh@amd.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
        "Lendacky, Thomas" <Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com>,
        X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>, KVM list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "dovmurik@linux.vnet.ibm.com" <dovmurik@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "tobin@ibm.com" <tobin@ibm.com>,
        "jejb@linux.ibm.com" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        "frankeh@us.ibm.com" <frankeh@us.ibm.com>,
        "Grimm, Jon" <jon.grimm@amd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 4:48 PM Ashish Kalra <ashish.kalra@amd.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 01:34:14AM +0000, Ashish Kalra wrote:
> > > Hello Steve,
> > >
> > > My thoughts here ...
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 05:01:33PM -0800, Steve Rutherford wrote:
> > > > Avoiding an rbtree for such a small (but unstable) list seems correct.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I agree.
> > >
> > > > For the unencrypted region list strategy, the only questions that I
> > > > have are fairly secondary.
> > > > - How should the kernel upper bound the size of the list in the face
> > > > of malicious guests, but still support large guests? (Something
> > > > similar to the size provided in the bitmap API would work).
> > > > - What serialization format should be used for the ioctl API?
> > > > (Usermode could send down a pointer to a user region and a size. The
> > > > kernel could then populate that with an array of structs containing
> > > > bases and limits for unencrypted regions.)
> > > > - How will the kernel tag a guest as having exceeded its maximum list
> > > > size, in order to indicate that the list is now incomplete? (Track a
> > > > poison bit, and send it up when getting the serialized list of
> > > > regions).
> > > >
> > > > In my view, there are two main competitors to this strategy:
> > > > - (Existing) Bitmap API
> > > > - A guest memory donation based model
> > > >
> > > > The existing bitmap API avoids any issues with growing too large,
> > > > since it's size is predictable.
> > > >
> > > > To elaborate on the memory donation based model, the guest could put
> > > > an encryption status data structure into unencrypted guest memory, and
> > > > then use a hypercall to inform the host where the base of that
> > > > structure is located. The main advantage of this is that it side steps
> > > > any issues around malicious guests causing large allocations.
> > > >
> > > > The unencrypted region list seems very practical. It's biggest
> > > > advantage over the bitmap is how cheap it will be to pass the
> > > > structure up from the kernel. A memory donation based model could
> > > > achieve similar performance, but with some additional complexity.
> > > >
> > > > Does anyone view the memory donation model as worth the complexity?
> > > > Does anyone think the simplicity of the bitmap is a better tradeoff
> > > > compared to an unencrypted region list?
> > >
> > > One advantage in sticking with the bitmap is that it maps very nicely to
> > > the dirty bitmap page tracking logic in KVM/Qemu. The way Brijesh
> > > designed and implemented it is very similar to dirty page bitmap tracking
> > > and syncing between KVM and Qemu. The same logic is re-used for the page
> > > encryption bitmap which means quite mininal changes and code resuse in
> > > Qemu.
> > >
> > > Any changes to the backing data structure, will require additional
> > > mapping logic to be added to Qemu.
> > >
> > > This is one advantage in keeping the bitmap logic.
> > >
>
> So if nobody is in favor of keeping the (current) bitmap logic, we will
> move to the unencrypted region list approach.
Sounds good to me.

>
> Thanks,
> Ashish