lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: SEV guest regression in 4.18
From
Date
On 23/08/2018 17:29, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 01:26:55PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 22/08/2018 22:11, Brijesh Singh wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, this is one of approach I have in mind. It will avoid splitting
>>> the larger pages; I am thinking that early in boot code we can lookup
>>> for this special section and decrypt it in-place and probably maps with
>>> C=0. Only downside, it will increase data section footprint a bit
>>> because we need to align this section to PM_SIZE.
>>
>> If you can ensure it doesn't span a PMD, maybe it does not need to be
>> aligned; you could establish a C=0 mapping of the whole 2M around it.
>
> Wouldn't that result in exposing/leaking whatever code/data happened
> to reside on the same 2M page (or corrupting it if the entire page
> isn't decrypted)? Or are you suggesting that we'd also leave the
> encrypted mapping intact?

Yes, exactly the latter, because...

> Does hardware include the C-bit in the cache tag?

... the C-bit is effectively part of the physical address and hence of
the cache tag. The kernel is already relying on this to properly
encrypt/decrypt pages, if I remember correctly.

Paolo

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-08-23 18:18    [W:2.700 / U:0.380 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site