Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of amd.com designates
 165.204.84.17 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=165.204.84.17; helo=SATLEXMB04.amd.com; pr=C
Date:   Wed, 4 Jan 2023 11:47:21 -0600
From:   Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
CC:     <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-coco@lists.linux.dev>,
        <linux-mm@kvack.org>, <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
        <x86@kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <tglx@linutronix.de>, <mingo@redhat.com>, <jroedel@suse.de>,
        <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>, <hpa@zytor.com>, <ardb@kernel.org>,
        <pbonzini@redhat.com>, <seanjc@google.com>, <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        <wanpengli@tencent.com>, <jmattson@google.com>, <luto@kernel.org>,
        <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, <slp@redhat.com>,
        <pgonda@google.com>, <peterz@infradead.org>,
        <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>, <rientjes@google.com>,
        <dovmurik@linux.ibm.com>, <tobin@ibm.com>, <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        <kirill@shutemov.name>, <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        <tony.luck@intel.com>, <marcorr@google.com>,
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
        <alpergun@google.com>, <dgilbert@redhat.com>, <jarkko@kernel.org>,
        <ashish.kalra@amd.com>, <harald@profian.com>,
        <chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v7 02/64] KVM: x86: Add
 KVM_CAP_UNMAPPED_PRIVATE_MEMORY
Message-ID: <20230104174721.wa4detzppqzvsgsy@amd.com>
References: <20221214194056.161492-1-michael.roth@amd.com>
 <20221214194056.161492-3-michael.roth@amd.com>
 <Y6RM8RRryLgK8KiB@zn.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y6RM8RRryLgK8KiB@zn.tnic>
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jan 2023 02:58:05.8381
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 47bdd82c-df2a-44f8-0a52-08daeec8ab2c
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 3dd8961f-e488-4e60-8e11-a82d994e183d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=3dd8961f-e488-4e60-8e11-a82d994e183d;Ip=[165.204.84.17];Helo=[SATLEXMB04.amd.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: DM6NAM11FT015.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY5PR12MB4035
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DATE_IN_PAST_06_12,
        DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
        RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no
        autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
        lindbergh.monkeyblade.net
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 01:26:25PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 01:39:54PM -0600, Michael Roth wrote:
> > This mainly indicates to KVM that it should expect all private guest
> > memory to be backed by private memslots. Ideally this would work
> > similarly for others archs, give or take a few additional flags, but
> > for now it's a simple boolean indicator for x86.
> 
> ...
> 
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> > index c7e9d375a902..cc9424ccf9b2 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> > @@ -1219,6 +1219,7 @@ struct kvm_ppc_resize_hpt {
> >  #define KVM_CAP_DIRTY_LOG_RING_ACQ_REL 223
> >  #define KVM_CAP_S390_PROTECTED_ASYNC_DISABLE 224
> >  #define KVM_CAP_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES 225
> > +#define KVM_CAP_UNMAPPED_PRIVATE_MEM 240
> 
> Isn't this new cap supposed to be documented somewhere in
> Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst ?

It should, but this is sort of a placeholder for now. Ideally we'd
re-use the capabilities introduced by UPM patchset rather than introduce
a new one. Originally the UPM patchset had a KVM_CAP_PRIVATE_MEM which
we planned to use to switch between legacy SEV and UPM-based SEV (for
lazy-pinning support) by making it writeable, but that was removed in v10
in favor of KVM_CAP_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES, which is tied to the new
KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES/KVM_SET_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES ioctls:

  https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+EHjTxXOdzcP25F57Mtmnb1NWyG5DcyqeDPqzjEOzRUrqH8FQ@mail.gmail.com/

It wasn't clear at the time if that was the right interface to use for
this particular case, so we stuck with the more general
'use-upm/dont-use-upm' semantics originally provided by making
KVM_CAP_UNMAPPED_PRIVATE_MEM/KVM_CAP_PRIVATE_MEM writeable.

But maybe it's okay to just make KVM_CAP_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES writeable and
require userspace to negotiate it rather than just tying it to
CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES. Or maybe introducing a new
KVM_SET_SUPPORTED_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES ioctl to pair with
KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES. It sort of makes sense, since userspace
needs to be prepared to deal with KVM_EXIT_MEMORY_FAULTs relating to these
attributes.

-Mike

> 
> -- 
> Regards/Gruss,
>     Boris.
> 
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpeople.kernel.org%2Ftglx%2Fnotes-about-netiquette&data=05%7C01%7Cmichael.roth%40amd.com%7Cb019ddcb34a74fae1e3e08dae417c322%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C638073087997837943%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=QRyV96y3drt%2BqwxfifWzJ6UF6te8NOKWAFuGAYOdKcg%3D&reserved=0