On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:01:55 +0000,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2022 at 21:09, Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > A recent development on the EFI front has resulted in guests having
> > their page tables baked in the firmware binary, and mapped into
> > the IPA space as part as a read-only memslot.
> >
> > Not only this is legitimate, but it also results in added security,
> > so thumbs up. However, this clashes mildly with our handling of a S1PTW
> > as a write to correctly handle AF/DB updates to the S1 PTs, and results
> > in the guest taking an abort it won't recover from (the PTs mapping the
> > vectors will suffer freom the same problem...).
> >
> > So clearly our handling is... wrong.
> >
> > Instead, switch to a two-pronged approach:
> >
> > - On S1PTW translation fault, handle the fault as a read
> >
> > - On S1PTW permission fault, handle the fault as a write
> >
> > This is of no consequence to SW that *writes* to its PTs (the write
> > will trigger a non-S1PTW fault), and SW that uses RO PTs will not
> > use AF/DB anyway, as that'd be wrong.
> >
> > Only in the case described in c4ad98e4b72c ("KVM: arm64: Assume write
> > fault on S1PTW permission fault on instruction fetch") do we end-up
> > with two back-to-back faults (page being evicted and faulted back).
> > I don't think this is a case worth optimising for.
> >
> > Fixes: c4ad98e4b72c ("KVM: arm64: Assume write fault on S1PTW permission fault on instruction fetch")
> > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Reviewed-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I have tested this patch on my TX2 with one of the EFI builds in
> question, and everything works as before (I never observed the issue
> itself)
If you get the chance, could you try with non-4kB page sizes? Here, I
could only reproduce it with 16kB pages. It was firing like clockwork
on Cortex-A55 with that.
>
> Regression-tested-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> For the record, the EFI build in question targets QEMU/mach-virt and
> switches to a set of read-only page tables in emulated NOR flash
> straight out of reset, so it can create and populate the real page
> tables with MMU and caches enabled. EFI does not use virtual memory or
> paging so managing access flags or dirty bits in hardware is unlikely
> to add any value, and it is not being used at the moment. And given
> that this is emulated NOR flash, any ordinary write to it tears down
> the r/o memslot altogether, and kicks the NOR flash emulation in QEMU
> into programming mode, which is fully based on MMIO emulation and does
> not use a memslot at all. IOW, even if we could figure out what store
> the PTW was attempting to do, it is always going to be rejected since
> the r/o page tables can only be modified by 'programming' the NOR
> flash sector.
Indeed, and this would be a pretty dodgy setup anyway.
Thanks for having had a look,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
