Hi,
On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 3:28 PM Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 04:19:46PM +0100, Fuad Tabba wrote:
> > > Regarding pKVM's use case, with the shim approach I believe this can be done by
> > > allowing userspace mmap() the "hidden" memfd, but with a ton of restrictions
> > > piled on top.
> > >
> > > My first thought was to make the uAPI a set of KVM ioctls so that KVM could tightly
> > > tightly control usage without taking on too much complexity in the kernel, but
> > > working through things, routing the behavior through the shim itself might not be
> > > all that horrific.
> > >
> > > IIRC, we discarded the idea of allowing userspace to map the "private" fd because
> > > things got too complex, but with the shim it doesn't seem _that_ bad.
> > >
> > > E.g. on the memfd side:
> > >
> > > 1. The entire memfd must be mapped, and at most one mapping is allowed, i.e.
> > > mapping is all or nothing.
> > >
> > > 2. Acquiring a reference via get_pfn() is disallowed if there's a mapping for
> > > the restricted memfd.
> > >
> > > 3. Add notifier hooks to allow downstream users to further restrict things.
> > >
> > > 4. Disallow splitting VMAs, e.g. to force userspace to munmap() everything in
> > > one shot.
> > >
> > > 5. Require that there are no outstanding references at munmap(). Or if this
> > > can't be guaranteed by userspace, maybe add some way for userspace to wait
> > > until it's ok to convert to private? E.g. so that get_pfn() doesn't need
> > > to do an expensive check every time.
> > >
> > > static int memfd_restricted_mmap(struct file *file, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > > {
> > > if (vma->vm_pgoff)
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > if ((vma->vm_end - vma->vm_start) != <file size>)
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > mutex_lock(&data->lock);
> > >
> > > if (data->has_mapping) {
> > > r = -EINVAL;
> > > goto err;
> > > }
> > > list_for_each_entry(notifier, &data->notifiers, list) {
> > > r = notifier->ops->mmap_start(notifier, ...);
> > > if (r)
> > > goto abort;
> > > }
> > >
> > > notifier->ops->mmap_end(notifier, ...);
> > > mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
> > > return 0;
> > >
> > > abort:
> > > list_for_each_entry_continue_reverse(notifier &data->notifiers, list)
> > > notifier->ops->mmap_abort(notifier, ...);
> > > err:
> > > mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
> > > return r;
> > > }
> > >
> > > static void memfd_restricted_close(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > > {
> > > mutex_lock(...);
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * Destroy the memfd and disable all future accesses if there are
> > > * outstanding refcounts (or other unsatisfied restrictions?).
> > > */
> > > if (<outstanding references> || ???)
> > > memfd_restricted_destroy(...);
> > > else
> > > data->has_mapping = false;
> > >
> > > mutex_unlock(...);
> > > }
> > >
> > > static int memfd_restricted_may_split(struct vm_area_struct *area, unsigned long addr)
> > > {
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > > }
> > >
> > > static int memfd_restricted_mapping_mremap(struct vm_area_struct *new_vma)
> > > {
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > > }
> > >
> > > Then on the KVM side, its mmap_start() + mmap_end() sequence would:
> > >
> > > 1. Not be supported for TDX or SEV-SNP because they don't allow adding non-zero
> > > memory into the guest (after pre-boot phase).
> > >
> > > 2. Be mutually exclusive with shared<=>private conversions, and is allowed if
> > > and only if the entire gfn range of the associated memslot is shared.
> >
> > In general I think that this would work with pKVM. However, limiting
> > private<->shared conversions to the granularity of a whole memslot
> > might be difficult to handle in pKVM, since the guest doesn't have the
> > concept of memslots. For example, in pKVM right now, when a guest
> > shares back its restricted DMA pool with the host it does so at the
> > page-level. pKVM would also need a way to make an fd accessible again
> > when shared back, which I think isn't possible with this patch.
>
> But does pKVM really want to mmap/munmap a new region at the page-level,
> that can cause VMA fragmentation if the conversion is frequent as I see.
> Even with a KVM ioctl for mapping as mentioned below, I think there will
> be the same issue.
pKVM doesn't really need to unmap the memory. What is really important
is that the memory is not GUP'able. Having private memory mapped and
then accessed by a misbehaving/malicious process will reinject a fault
into the misbehaving process.
Cheers,
/fuad
> >
> > You were initially considering a KVM ioctl for mapping, which might be
> > better suited for this since KVM knows which pages are shared and
> > which ones are private. So routing things through KVM might simplify
> > things and allow it to enforce all the necessary restrictions (e.g.,
> > private memory cannot be mapped). What do you think?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > /fuad
