Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Message-ID: <e73cb19e-7dab-2fc1-b947-fac70fd607d2@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 May 2022 09:36:03 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/tdx: Handle load_unaligned_zeropad() page-cross to a
 shared page
Content-Language: en-US
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de,
        luto@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org
Cc:     sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com, ak@linux.intel.com,
        dan.j.williams@intel.com, david@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com,
        seanjc@google.com, thomas.lendacky@amd.com, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220517153021.11116-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220517153021.11116-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 5/17/22 08:30, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> load_unaligned_zeropad() can lead to unwanted loads across page boundaries.
> The unwanted loads are typically harmless. But, they might be made to
> totally unrelated or even unmapped memory. load_unaligned_zeropad()
> relies on exception fixup (#PF, #GP and now #VE) to recover from these
> unwanted loads.
> 
> In TDX guest the second page can be shared page and VMM may configure it
> to trigger #VE.
> 
> Kernel assumes that #VE on a shared page is MMIO access and tries to
> decode instruction to handle it. In case of load_unaligned_zeropad() it
> may result in confusion as it is not MMIO access.
> 
> Check fixup table before trying to handle MMIO.

Is this a theoretical problem or was it found in practice?

> diff --git a/arch/x86/coco/tdx/tdx.c b/arch/x86/coco/tdx/tdx.c
> index 03deb4d6920d..5fbdda2f2b86 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/coco/tdx/tdx.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/coco/tdx/tdx.c
> @@ -11,6 +11,8 @@
>  #include <asm/insn.h>
>  #include <asm/insn-eval.h>
>  #include <asm/pgtable.h>
> +#include <asm/trapnr.h>
> +#include <asm/extable.h>
>  
>  /* TDX module Call Leaf IDs */
>  #define TDX_GET_INFO			1
> @@ -296,6 +298,26 @@ static bool handle_mmio(struct pt_regs *regs, struct ve_info *ve)
>  	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(user_mode(regs)))
>  		return false;
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * load_unaligned_zeropad() relies on exception fixups in case of the
> +	 * word being a page-crosser and the second page is not accessible.
> +	 *
> +	 * In TDX guest the second page can be shared page and VMM may

	In TDX guests,

> +	 * configure it to trigger #VE.
> +	 *
> +	 * Kernel assumes that #VE on a shared page is MMIO access and tries to
> +	 * decode instruction to handle it. In case of load_unaligned_zeropad()
> +	 * it may result in confusion as it is not MMIO access.
> +	 *
> +	 * Check fixup table before trying to handle MMIO.
> +	 */
> +	if (fixup_exception(regs, X86_TRAP_VE, 0, ve->gla)) {
> +		/* regs->ip is adjusted by fixup_exception() */
> +		ve->instr_len = 0;
> +
> +		return true;
> +	}

This 've->instr_len = ' stuff is just a hack.

ve_info is a software structure.  Why not just add a:

	bool ip_adjusted;

which defaults to false, then we have:

	/*
	 * Adjust RIP if the exception was handled
	 * but RIP was not adjusted.
	 */
	if (!ret && !ve_info->ip_adjusted)
		regs->ip += ve_info->instr_len;

One other oddity I just stumbled upon:

static bool handle_mmio(struct pt_regs *regs, struct ve_info *ve)
{
...
        ve->instr_len = insn.length;

Why does that need to override 've->instr_len'?  What was wrong with the
gunk in r10 that came out of TDX_GET_VEINFO?