On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 07:35:58PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023, Chao Peng wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 12:01:01AM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 02, 2022, Chao Peng wrote:
> > > > @@ -10357,6 +10364,12 @@ static int vcpu_enter_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > >
> > > > if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_UPDATE_CPU_DIRTY_LOGGING, vcpu))
> > > > static_call(kvm_x86_update_cpu_dirty_logging)(vcpu);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_MEMORY_MCE, vcpu)) {
> > > > + vcpu->run->exit_reason = KVM_EXIT_SHUTDOWN;
> > >
> > > Synthesizing triple fault shutdown is not the right approach. Even with TDX's
> > > MCE "architecture" (heavy sarcasm), it's possible that host userspace and the
> > > guest have a paravirt interface for handling memory errors without killing the
> > > host.
> >
> > Agree shutdown is not the correct choice. I see you made below change:
> >
> > send_sig_mceerr(BUS_MCEERR_AR, (void __user *)hva, PAGE_SHIFT, current)
> >
> > The MCE may happen in any thread than KVM thread, sending siginal to
> > 'current' thread may not be the expected behavior.
>
> This is already true today, e.g. a #MC in memory that is mapped into the guest can
> be triggered by a host access. Hrm, but in this case we actually have a KVM
> instance, and we know that the #MC is relevant to the KVM instance, so I agree
> that signaling 'current' is kludgy.
>
> > Also how userspace can tell is the MCE on the shared page or private page?
> > Do we care?
>
> We care. I was originally thinking we could require userspace to keep track of
> things, but that's quite prescriptive and flawed, e.g. could race with conversions.
>
> One option would be to KVM_EXIT_MEMORY_FAULT, and then wire up a generic (not x86
> specific) KVM request to exit to userspace, e.g.
>
> /* KVM_EXIT_MEMORY_FAULT */
> struct {
> #define KVM_MEMORY_EXIT_FLAG_PRIVATE (1ULL << 3)
> #define KVM_MEMORY_EXIT_FLAG_HW_ERROR (1ULL << 4)
> __u64 flags;
> __u64 gpa;
> __u64 size;
> } memory;
>
> But I'm not sure that's the correct approach. It kinda feels like we're reinventing
> the wheel. It seems like restrictedmem_get_page() _must_ be able to reject attempts
> to get a poisoned page, i.e. restrictedmem_get_page() should yield KVM_PFN_ERR_HWPOISON.
Yes, I see there is -EHWPOISON handling for hva_to_pfn() for shared
memory. It makes sense doing similar for private page.
> Assuming that's the case, then I believe KVM simply needs to zap SPTEs in response
> to an error notification in order to force vCPUs to fault on the poisoned page.
Agree, this is waht we should do anyway.
>
> > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > if (as_id >= KVM_ADDRESS_SPACE_NUM || id >= KVM_MEM_SLOTS_NUM)
> > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > > if (mem->guest_phys_addr + mem->memory_size < mem->guest_phys_addr)
> > > > @@ -2020,6 +2154,9 @@ int __kvm_set_memory_region(struct kvm *kvm,
> > > > if ((kvm->nr_memslot_pages + npages) < kvm->nr_memslot_pages)
> > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > > } else { /* Modify an existing slot. */
> > > > + /* Private memslots are immutable, they can only be deleted. */
> > >
> > > I'm 99% certain I suggested this, but if we're going to make these memslots
> > > immutable, then we should straight up disallow dirty logging, otherwise we'll
> > > end up with a bizarre uAPI.
> >
> > But in my mind dirty logging will be needed in the very short time, when
> > live migration gets supported?
>
> Ya, but if/when live migration support is added, private memslots will no longer
> be immutable as userspace will want to enable dirty logging only when a VM is
> being migrated, i.e. something will need to change.
>
> Given that it looks like we have clear line of sight to SEV+UPM guests, my
> preference would be to allow toggling dirty logging from the get-go. It doesn't
> necessarily have to be in the first patch, e.g. KVM could initially reject
> KVM_MEM_LOG_DIRTY_PAGES + KVM_MEM_PRIVATE and then add support separately to make
> the series easier to review, test, and bisect.
>
> static int check_memory_region_flags(struct kvm *kvm,
> const struct kvm_userspace_memory_region2 *mem)
> {
> u32 valid_flags = KVM_MEM_LOG_DIRTY_PAGES;
>
> if (kvm_arch_has_private_mem(kvm) &&
> ~(mem->flags & KVM_MEM_LOG_DIRTY_PAGES))
> valid_flags |= KVM_MEM_PRIVATE;
Adding this limitation is OK to me. It's not too hard to remove it when
live migration gets added.
>
>
> ...
> }
>
> > > > + if (mem->flags & KVM_MEM_PRIVATE)
> > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > if ((mem->userspace_addr != old->userspace_addr) ||
> > > > (npages != old->npages) ||
> > > > ((mem->flags ^ old->flags) & KVM_MEM_READONLY))
> > > > @@ -2048,10 +2185,28 @@ int __kvm_set_memory_region(struct kvm *kvm,
> > > > new->npages = npages;
> > > > new->flags = mem->flags;
> > > > new->userspace_addr = mem->userspace_addr;
> > > > + if (mem->flags & KVM_MEM_PRIVATE) {
> > > > + new->restricted_file = fget(mem->restricted_fd);
> > > > + if (!new->restricted_file ||
> > > > + !file_is_restrictedmem(new->restricted_file)) {
> > > > + r = -EINVAL;
> > > > + goto out;
> > > > + }
> > > > + new->restricted_offset = mem->restricted_offset;
> >
> > I see you changed slot->restricted_offset type from loff_t to gfn_t and
> > used pgoff_t when doing the restrictedmem_bind/unbind(). Using page
> > index is reasonable KVM internally and sounds simpler than loff_t. But
> > we also need initialize it to page index here as well as changes in
> > another two cases. This is needed when restricted_offset != 0.
>
> Oof. I'm pretty sure I completely missed that loff_t is used for byte offsets,
> whereas pgoff_t is a frame index.
>
> Given that the restrictmem APIs take pgoff_t, I definitely think it makes sense
> to the index, but I'm very tempted to store pgoff_t instead of gfn_t, and name
> the field "index" to help connect the dots to the rest of kernel, where "pgoff_t index"
> is quite common.
>
> And looking at those bits again, we should wrap all of the restrictedmem fields
> with CONFIG_KVM_PRIVATE_MEM. It'll require minor tweaks to __kvm_set_memory_region(),
> but I think will yield cleaner code (and internal APIs) overall.
>
> And wrap the three fields in an anonymous struct? E.g. this is a little more
> versbose (restrictedmem instead restricted), but at first glance it doesn't seem
> to cause widespared line length issues.
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_KVM_PRIVATE_MEM
> struct {
> struct file *file;
> pgoff_t index;
> struct restrictedmem_notifier notifier;
> } restrictedmem;
> #endif
Looks better.
Thanks,
Chao
>
> > diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > index 547b92215002..49e375e78f30 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > @@ -2364,8 +2364,7 @@ static inline int kvm_restricted_mem_get_pfn(struct kvm_memory_slot *slot,
> > gfn_t gfn, kvm_pfn_t *pfn,
> > int *order)
> > {
> > - pgoff_t index = gfn - slot->base_gfn +
> > - (slot->restricted_offset >> PAGE_SHIFT);
> > + pgoff_t index = gfn - slot->base_gfn + slot->restricted_offset;
> > struct page *page;
> > int ret;
> >
> > diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > index 01db35ddd5b3..7439bdcb0d04 100644
> > --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > @@ -935,7 +935,7 @@ static bool restrictedmem_range_is_valid(struct kvm_memory_slot *slot,
> > pgoff_t start, pgoff_t end,
> > gfn_t *gfn_start, gfn_t *gfn_end)
> > {
> > - unsigned long base_pgoff = slot->restricted_offset >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > + unsigned long base_pgoff = slot->restricted_offset;
> >
> > if (start > base_pgoff)
> > *gfn_start = slot->base_gfn + start - base_pgoff;
> > @@ -2275,7 +2275,7 @@ int __kvm_set_memory_region(struct kvm *kvm,
> > r = -EINVAL;
> > goto out;
> > }
> > - new->restricted_offset = mem->restricted_offset;
> > + new->restricted_offset = mem->restricted_offset >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > }
> >
> > r = kvm_set_memslot(kvm, old, new, change);
> >
> > Chao
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + new->kvm = kvm;
> > >
> > > Set this above, just so that the code flows better.
