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=-5.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,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 E220BC4361B for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 16:48:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61C0823787 for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 16:48:28 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 61C0823787 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:55588 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kmJgZ-0007Dh-EI for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 11:48:27 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35806) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kmJcw-0003g1-86 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 11:44:42 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([63.128.21.124]:25191) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kmJcs-0000Tk-Gq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 11:44:42 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1607359477; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=UgdjE4fKcDjZBY/heUx1DQEDENSCD7DYWWLFE/GwBEg=; b=AiaaUCVjHrh0hsEJDm7XD1DLKeFeODroWOcMEKElNocjWdD6QJiazBUI6e+XlMMrZPnGGr F8O9ilw/PxpDF1ddAFb+1BEL4WknsTAl3iMl/P4/8yg5toi04zaRiuI7HZDq59d6oQgwBj 0JTOE9AJxHD1aKb4FGaFjtyH+5jzj9g= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-212-xjKu7mQ6NxSw7npi5lgtfA-1; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 11:44:36 -0500 X-MC-Unique: xjKu7mQ6NxSw7npi5lgtfA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C09D1922020; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 16:44:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from work-vm (ovpn-114-87.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.114.87]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32D6A60C0F; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 16:44:30 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 16:44:28 +0000 From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" To: Steven Price , dgibson@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] MTE support for KVM guest Message-ID: <20201207164428.GD3135@work-vm> References: <20201119153901.53705-1-steven.price@arm.com> <20201119184248.4bycy6ouvaxqdiiy@kamzik.brq.redhat.com> <46fd98a2-ee39-0086-9159-b38c406935ab@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.14.6 (2020-07-11) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=63.128.21.124; envelope-from=dgilbert@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Peter Maydell , Juan Quintela , Marc Zyngier , Richard Henderson , lkml - Kernel Mailing List , QEMU Developers , Haibo Xu , Catalin Marinas , Thomas Gleixner , Will Deacon , kvmarm , arm-mail-list , Dave Martin Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" * Steven Price (steven.price@arm.com) wrote: > On 07/12/2020 15:27, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 14:48, Steven Price wrote: > > > Sounds like you are making good progress - thanks for the update. Have > > > you thought about how the PROT_MTE mappings might work if QEMU itself > > > were to use MTE? My worry is that we end up with MTE in a guest > > > preventing QEMU from using MTE itself (because of the PROT_MTE > > > mappings). I'm hoping QEMU can wrap its use of guest memory in a > > > sequence which disables tag checking (something similar will be needed > > > for the "protected VM" use case anyway), but this isn't something I've > > > looked into. > > > > It's not entirely the same as the "protected VM" case. For that > > the patches currently on list basically special case "this is a > > debug access (eg from gdbstub/monitor)" which then either gets > > to go via "decrypt guest RAM for debug" or gets failed depending > > on whether the VM has a debug-is-ok flag enabled. For an MTE > > guest the common case will be guests doing standard DMA operations > > to or from guest memory. The ideal API for that from QEMU's > > point of view would be "accesses to guest RAM don't do tag > > checks, even if tag checks are enabled for accesses QEMU does to > > memory it has allocated itself as a normal userspace program". > > Sorry, I know I simplified it rather by saying it's similar to protected VM. > Basically as I see it there are three types of memory access: > > 1) Debug case - has to go via a special case for decryption or ignoring the > MTE tag value. Hopefully this can be abstracted in the same way. > > 2) Migration - for a protected VM there's likely to be a special method to > allow the VMM access to the encrypted memory (AFAIK memory is usually kept > inaccessible to the VMM). For MTE this again has to be special cased as we > actually want both the data and the tag values. > > 3) Device DMA - for a protected VM it's usual to unencrypt a small area of > memory (with the permission of the guest) and use that as a bounce buffer. > This is possible with MTE: have an area the VMM purposefully maps with > PROT_MTE. The issue is that this has a performance overhead and we can do > better with MTE because it's trivial for the VMM to disable the protection > for any memory. Those all sound very similar to the AMD SEV world; there's the special case for Debug that Peter mentioned; migration is ...complicated and needs special case that's still being figured out, and as I understand Device DMA also uses a bounce buffer (and swiotlb in the guest to make that happen). I'm not sure about the stories for the IBM hardware equivalents. Dave > The part I'm unsure on is how easy it is for QEMU to deal with (3) without > the overhead of bounce buffers. Ideally there'd already be a wrapper for > guest memory accesses and that could just be wrapped with setting TCO during > the access. I suspect the actual situation is more complex though, and I'm > hoping Haibo's investigations will help us understand this. > > Thanks, > > Steve > -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK