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:   Mon, 3 Apr 2023 17:42:41 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        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>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@suse.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        marcelo.cerri@canonical.com, tim.gardner@canonical.com,
        khalid.elmously@canonical.com, philip.cox@canonical.com,
        aarcange@redhat.com, peterx@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv9 11/14] x86/mm: Avoid load_unaligned_zeropad() stepping
 into unaccepted memory
Message-ID: <20230403144241.f4xpsyxuy2nh2aql@box.shutemov.name>
References: <20230330114956.20342-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <20230330114956.20342-12-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <48567ee3-b482-bafd-bd25-cbb8bf3403b2@suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <48567ee3-b482-bafd-bd25-cbb8bf3403b2@suse.cz>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 03:28:36PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 3/30/23 13:49, 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.
> > 
> > There are three parts to fix this issue and comprehensively avoid access
> > to unaccepted memory. Together these ensure that an extra "guard" page
> > is accepted in addition to the memory that needs to be used.
> > 
> > 1. Implicitly extend the range_contains_unaccepted_memory(start, end)
> >    checks up to end+2M if 'end' is aligned on a 2M boundary. It may
> >    require checking 2M chunk beyond end of RAM. The bitmap allocation is
> >    modified to accommodate this.
> > 2. Implicitly extend accept_memory(start, end) to end+2M if 'end' is
> >    aligned on a 2M boundary.
> > 3. Set PageUnaccepted() on both memory that itself needs to be accepted
> >    *and* memory where the next page needs to be accepted. Essentially,
> >    make PageUnaccepted(page) a marker for whether work needs to be done
> >    to make 'page' usable. That work might include accepting pages in
> >    addition to 'page' itself.
> > 
> > Side note: This leads to something strange. Pages which were accepted
> > 	   at boot, marked by the firmware as accepted and will never
> > 	   _need_ to be accepted might have PageUnaccepted() set on
> > 	   them. PageUnaccepted(page) is a cue to ensure that the next
> > 	   page is accepted before 'page' can be used.
> 
> At least the part about PageUnaccepted() is obsolete in v9, no?

Ah, right. Nice catch.

I removed PageUnaccepted() late in patchset preparation and forgot about
this.

-- 
  Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov