Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Feedback-ID: ie3994620:Fastmail
Date:   Sun, 14 Aug 2022 00:02:15 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Varad Gautam <varad.gautam@suse.com>,
        Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@suse.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Marcelo Henrique Cerri <marcelo.cerri@canonical.com>,
        tim.gardner@canonical.com, khalid.elmously@canonical.com,
        philip.cox@canonical.com,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 10/14] x86/mm: Avoid load_unaligned_zeropad() stepping
 into unaccepted memory
Message-ID: <20220813210215.ti7f2vqdg6olthjv@box.shutemov.name>
References: <20220614120231.48165-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <20220614120231.48165-11-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <7cec93c5-3db4-409b-8c1e-bc1f10dd68fc@www.fastmail.com>
 <20220809113827.fchtnyzy44z5fuis@box.shutemov.name>
 <453fb432-ac13-4819-8395-95561bca948b@www.fastmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <453fb432-ac13-4819-8395-95561bca948b@www.fastmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 09:03:13AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2022, at 4:38 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 01:17:13PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Tue, Jun 14, 2022, at 5:02 AM, 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.
> >> >
> >> > But, this approach does not work for unaccepted memory. For TDX, a load
> >> > from unaccepted memory will not lead to a recoverable exception within
> >> > the guest. The guest will exit to the VMM where the only recourse is to
> >> > terminate the guest.
> >> 
> >> Why is unaccepted memory marked present in the direct map in the first place?
> >> 
> >> Having kernel code assume that every valid address is followed by
> >> several bytes of memory that may be read without side effects other than
> >> #PF also seems like a mistake, but I probably won’t win that fight. But
> >> sticking guard pages in front of definitely-not-logically present pages
> >> seems silly to me.  Let’s just not map it.
> >
> > It would mean no 1G pages in direct mapping for TDX as we accept 2M a
> > time.

As of now, we don't have a way to recover direct mapping from
fragmentation. So once we split 1G to 2M it stays this way.

> >> (What if MMIO memory is mapped next to regular memory?  Doing random
> >> unaligned reads that cross into MMIO seems unwise.)
> >
> > MMIO is shared, not unaccpted private. We already handle the situation.
> > See 1e7769653b06 ("x86/tdx: Handle load_unaligned_zeropad() page-cross to
> > a shared page").
> >
> 
> I don’t mean in a confidential guest — I mean generally. This whole
> model of “overrun the buffer — no big deal” is just fragile.

If you want to remove load_unaligned_zeropad(), I would not object. It can
make life easier.

I presumed that optimization it brings has measuarable benefit (otherwise,
why bother).

-- 
  Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov