From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4CA8C433DF for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 14:18:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCCD820679 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 14:18:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730328AbgFOOR7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jun 2020 10:17:59 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:49110 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729733AbgFOOR7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jun 2020 10:17:59 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB5BC31B; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 07:17:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from arm.com (usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1CA6A3F6CF; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 07:17:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 15:17:56 +0100 From: Dave Martin To: Marc Zyngier Cc: kernel-team@android.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] KVM/arm64: Enable PtrAuth on non-VHE KVM Message-ID: <20200615141755.GK25945@arm.com> References: <20200615081954.6233-1-maz@kernel.org> <20200615125920.GJ25945@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 02:22:19PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > Hi Dave, > > On 2020-06-15 13:59, Dave Martin wrote: > >On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 09:19:50AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >>Not having PtrAuth on non-VHE KVM (for whatever reason VHE is not > >>enabled on a v8.3 system) has always looked like an oddity. This > >>trivial series remedies it, and allows a non-VHE KVM to offer PtrAuth > >>to its guests. > > > >How likely do you think it is that people will use such a configuration? > > Depending on the use case, very. See below. > > >The only reason I can see for people to build a kernel with CONFIG_VHE=n > >is as a workaround for broken hardware, or because the kernel is too old > >to support VHE (in which case it doesn't understand ptrauth either, so > >it is irrelevant whether ptrauth depends on VHE). > > Part of the work happening around running protected VMs (which cannot > be tampered with from EL1/0 host) makes it mandatory to disable VHE, > so that we can wrap the host EL1 in its own Stage-2 page tables. > We (the Android kernel team) are actively working on enabling this > feature. > > >I wonder whether it's therefore better to "encourage" people to turn > >VHE on by making subsequent features depend on it where appropriate. > >We do want multiplatform kernels to be configured with CONFIG_VHE=y for > >example. > > I'm all for having VHE on for platforms that support it. Which is why > CONFIG_VHE=y is present in defconfig. However, we cannot offer the same > level of guarantee as we can hopefully achieve with non-VHE (we can > drop mappings from Stage-1, but can't protect VMs from an evil or > compromised host). This is a very different use case from the usual > "reduced hypervisor overhead" that we want in the general case. > > >I ask this, because SVE suffers the same "oddity". If SVE can be > >enabled for non-VHE kernels straightforwardly then there's no reason not > >to do so, but I worried in the past that this would duplicate complex > >code that would never be tested or used. > > It is a concern. I guess that if we manage to get some traction on > Android, then the feature will get some testing! And yes, SVE is > next on my list. > > >If supporting ptrauth with !VHE is as simple as this series suggests, > >then it's low-risk. Perhaps SVE isn't much worse. I was chasing nasty > >bugs around at the time the SVE KVM support was originally written, and > >didn't want to add more unknowns into the mix... > > I think having started with a slightly smaller problem space was the > right thing to do at the time. We are now reasonably confident that > KVM and SVE are working correctly together, and we can now try to enable > it on !VHE. Cool, now I understand. Cheers ---Dave