lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Dec]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v10 23/50] KVM: SEV: Make AVIC backing, VMSA and VMCB memory allocation SNP safe
From
Hello Vlastimil,

On 12/11/2023 7:24 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 10/16/23 15:27, Michael Roth wrote:
>> From: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>
>>
>> Implement a workaround for an SNP erratum where the CPU will incorrectly
>> signal an RMP violation #PF if a hugepage (2mb or 1gb) collides with the
>> RMP entry of a VMCB, VMSA or AVIC backing page.
>>
>> When SEV-SNP is globally enabled, the CPU marks the VMCB, VMSA, and AVIC
>> backing pages as "in-use" via a reserved bit in the corresponding RMP
>> entry after a successful VMRUN. This is done for _all_ VMs, not just
>> SNP-Active VMs.
>>
>> If the hypervisor accesses an in-use page through a writable
>> translation, the CPU will throw an RMP violation #PF. On early SNP
>> hardware, if an in-use page is 2mb aligned and software accesses any
>> part of the associated 2mb region with a hupage, the CPU will
>> incorrectly treat the entire 2mb region as in-use and signal a spurious
>> RMP violation #PF.
>>
>> The recommended is to not use the hugepage for the VMCB, VMSA or
>> AVIC backing page for similar reasons. Add a generic allocator that will
>> ensure that the page returns is not hugepage (2mb or 1gb) and is safe to
>
> This is a bit confusing wording as we are not avoiding "using a
> hugepage" but AFAIU, avoiding using a (4k) page that has a hugepage
> aligned physical address, right?

Yes.

>
>> be used when SEV-SNP is enabled. Also implement similar handling for the
>> VMCB/VMSA pages of nested guests.
>>
>> Co-developed-by: Marc Orr <marcorr@google.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Marc Orr <marcorr@google.com>
>> Reported-by: Alper Gun <alpergun@google.com> # for nested VMSA case
>> Co-developed-by: Ashish Kalra <ashish.kalra@amd.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Ashish Kalra <ashish.kalra@amd.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>
>> [mdr: squash in nested guest handling from Ashish]
>> Signed-off-by: Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>
>> ---
>
> <snip>
>
>> +
>> +struct page *snp_safe_alloc_page(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> +{
>> + unsigned long pfn;
>> + struct page *p;
>> +
>> + if (!cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_SEV_SNP))
>> + return alloc_page(GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT | __GFP_ZERO);
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Allocate an SNP safe page to workaround the SNP erratum where
>> + * the CPU will incorrectly signal an RMP violation #PF if a
>> + * hugepage (2mb or 1gb) collides with the RMP entry of VMCB, VMSA
>> + * or AVIC backing page. The recommeded workaround is to not use the
>> + * hugepage.
>
> Same here "not use the hugepage"
>
>> + *
>> + * Allocate one extra page, use a page which is not 2mb aligned
>> + * and free the other.
>
> This makes more sense.
>
>> + */
>> + p = alloc_pages(GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT | __GFP_ZERO, 1);
>> + if (!p)
>> + return NULL;
>> +
>> + split_page(p, 1);
> > Yeah I think that's a sensible use of split_page(), as we don't have
> support for forcefully non-aligned allocations or specific "page
> coloring" in the page allocator.

Yes, using split_page() allows us to free the additionally allocated
page individually.

Thanks,
Ashish

> So even with my wording concerns:
>
> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-12-12 01:01    [W:1.196 / U:0.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site