> + /*
> + * Copy the mapping for all the kernel text. We copy at the PMD
> + * level since the PUD is shared with the module mapping space.
> + */
> + rv = kvm_copy_mapping((void *)__START_KERNEL_map, KERNEL_IMAGE_SIZE,
> + PGT_LEVEL_PMD);
> + if (rv)
> + goto out_uninit_page_table;
Could you double-check this? We (I) have had some repeated confusion
with the PTI code and kernel text vs. kernel data vs. __init.
KERNEL_IMAGE_SIZE looks to be 512MB which is quite a bit bigger than
kernel text.
> + /*
> + * Copy the mapping for cpu_entry_area and %esp fixup stacks
> + * (this is based on the PTI userland address space, but probably
> + * not needed because the KVM address space is not directly
> + * enterered from userspace). They can both be copied at the P4D
> + * level since they each have a dedicated P4D entry.
> + */
> + rv = kvm_copy_mapping((void *)CPU_ENTRY_AREA_PER_CPU, P4D_SIZE,
> + PGT_LEVEL_P4D);
> + if (rv)
> + goto out_uninit_page_table;
cpu_entry_area is used for more than just entry from userspace. The gdt
mapping, for instance, is needed everywhere. You might want to go look
at 'struct cpu_entry_area' in some more detail.
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_ESPFIX64
> + rv = kvm_copy_mapping((void *)ESPFIX_BASE_ADDR, P4D_SIZE,
> + PGT_LEVEL_P4D);
> + if (rv)
> + goto out_uninit_page_table;
> +#endif
Why are these mappings *needed*? I thought we only actually used these
fixup stacks for some crazy iret-to-userspace handling. We're certainly
not doing that from KVM context.
Am I forgetting something?
> +#ifdef CONFIG_VMAP_STACK
> + /*
> + * Interrupt stacks are vmap'ed with guard pages, so we need to
> + * copy mappings.
> + */
> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> + stack = per_cpu(hardirq_stack_ptr, cpu);
> + pr_debug("IRQ Stack %px\n", stack);
> + if (!stack)
> + continue;
> + rv = kvm_copy_ptes(stack - IRQ_STACK_SIZE, IRQ_STACK_SIZE);
> + if (rv)
> + goto out_uninit_page_table;
> + }
> +
> +#endif
I seem to remember that the KVM VMENTRY/VMEXIT context is very special.
Interrupts (and even NMIs?) are disabled. Would it be feasible to do
the switching in there so that we never even *get* interrupts in the KVM
context?
I also share Peter's concerns about letting modules do this. If we ever
go down this road, we're going to have to think very carefully how we
let KVM do this without giving all the not-so-nice out-of-tree modules
the keys to the castle.
A high-level comment: it looks like this is "working", but has probably
erred on the side of mapping too much. The hard part is paring this
back to a truly minimal set of mappings.
