Re: [PATCH v11 018/113] KVM: TDX: create/destroy VM structure

[Huang, Kai]

On Thu, 2023-01-19 at 15:37 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023, Huang, Kai wrote:
> > On Tue, 2023-01-17 at 21:01 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023, Zhi Wang wrote:
> > > > > 2) As TDX module doesn't provide contention-and-wait, I guess the following
> > > > > approach might have been discussed when designing this "retry".
> > > > > 
> > > > > KERNEL                          TDX MODULE
> > > > > 
> > > > > SEAMCALL A   ->                 PATH A: Taking locks
> > > > > 
> > > > > SEAMCALL B   ->                 PATH B: Contention on a lock
> > > > > 
> > > > >              <-                 Return "operand busy"
> > > > > 
> > > > > SEAMCALL B   -|
> > > > >               |  <- Wait on a kernel waitqueue
> > > > > SEAMCALL B  <-|
> > > > > 
> > > > > SEAMCALL A   <-                 PATH A: Return
> > > > > 
> > > > > SEAMCALL A   -|
> > > > >               |  <- Wake up the waitqueue
> > > > > SEMACALL A  <-| 
> > > > > 
> > > > > SEAMCALL B  ->                  PATH B: Taking the locks
> > > > > ...
> > > > > 
> > > > > Why not this scheme wasn't chosen?
> > > > 
> > > > AFAIK, I don't think a waitqueue approach as ever been discussed publicly.  Intel
> > > > may have considered the idea internally, but I don't recall anything being proposed
> > > > publically (though it's entirely possible I just missed the discussion).
> > > > 
> > > > Anways, I don't think a waitqueue would be a good fit, at least not for S-EPT
> > > > management, which AFAICT is the only scenario where KVM does the arbitrary "retry
> > > > X times and hope things work".  If the contention occurs due to the TDX Module
> > > > taking an S-EPT lock in VM-Enter, then KVM won't get a chance to do the "Wake up
> > > > the waitqueue" action until the next VM-Exit, which IIUC is well after the TDX
> > > > Module drops the S-EPT lock.  In other words, immediately retrying and then punting
> > > > the problem further up the stack in KVM does seem to be the least awful "solution"
> > > > if there's contention.
> > > 
> > > Oh, the other important piece I forgot to mention is that dropping mmu_lock deep
> > > in KVM's MMU in order to wait isn't always an option.  Most flows would play nice
> > > with dropping mmu_lock and sleeping, but some paths, e.g. from the mmu_notifier,
> > > (conditionally) disallow sleeping.
> > 
> > Could we do something similar to tdp_mmu_iter_cond_resched() but not simple busy
> > retrying "X times",  at least at those paths that can release mmu_lock()?
> 
> That's effectively what happens by unwinding up the stak with an error code.
> Eventually the page fault handler will get the error and retry the guest.
> 
> > Basically we treat TDX_OPERAND_BUSY as seamcall_needbreak(), similar to
> > rwlock_needbreak().  I haven't thought about details though.
> 
> I am strongly opposed to that approach.  I do not want to pollute KVM's MMU code
> with a bunch of retry logic and error handling just because the TDX module is
> ultra paranoid and hostile to hypervisors.

Right.  But IIUC there's legal cases that SEPT SEAMCALL can return BUSY due to
multiple threads trying to read/modify SEPT simultaneously in case of TDP MMU. 
For instance, parallel page faults on different vcpus on private pages.  I
believe this is the main reason to retry.  We  previously used spinlock around
the SEAMCALLs to avoid, but looks that is not preferred.

> 
> The problematic scenario of faulting indefinitely on a single instruction should
> never happen under normal circumstances, and so KVM should treat such scenarios
> as attacks/breakage and pass the buck to userspace.

Totally agree zero-step attack can be treated KVM bug.