Re: [PATCHv7 00/14] mm, x86/cc: Implement support for unaccepted memory

From: Dionna Amalie Glaze <dionnaglaze@google.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	Marc Orr <marcorr@google.com>,  Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
	 Peter Gonda <pgonda@google.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	 Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	 Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
	 Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
	<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
	 David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	 Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	 Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Varad Gautam <varad.gautam@suse.com>,
	 Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@suse.com>,
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
	 David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
	Marcelo Cerri <marcelo.cerri@canonical.com>,
	 tim.gardner@canonical.com,
	Khalid ElMously <khalid.elmously@canonical.com>,
	 philip.cox@canonical.com,
	"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
	 Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	linux-coco@lists.linux.dev,
	 linux-efi <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	 "Yao, Jiewen" <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 00/14] mm, x86/cc: Implement support for unaccepted memory
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2022 15:01:52 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAH4kHYGZ179eYREi-YcYNd4Xd8gTPa2WX0iphr=Kiz6-A7hnQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMj1kXHEc=vEt=CtfdiPEsUe2i8QogAi+jvtY6h1awo7GZ-nRg@mail.gmail.com>

>
> What I strongly object to is inventing a new bespoke way for the
> firmware to make inferences about the capabilities of the image by
> inspecting fields in the file representation of the image (which is
> not guaranteed by EFI to be identical to its in-memory representation,
> as, e.g., the PE/COFF header could be omitted by a loader without
> violating the spec)
>
> As for the intermediate thing: yes, that would be a valuable thing to
> have in OVMF (and I will gladly take EDK2 patches that implement
> this). However, I'm not sure how you decide whether or not this thing
> should be active or not, doesn't that just move the problem around?

This does just move the problem around, but it makes correct behavior
the default instead of silently ignoring most of the VM's memory and
booting regularly. I have the driver mostly written to change the
behavior to accept all by default unless a driver has been installed
to set a particular boolean to make it not. Still that's yet another
thing as you say.

I agree with everyone that this situation just stinks. "Can't you just
boot it?" was asked before, and yes we can, but at the scale of a CSP
managing anybody's image uploads, that not-insignificant cost has to
be paid by someone. It's a hard problem to route the image to the
right kind of machine that's expected to be able to run it... it's a
big ol' mess.

One thing is for sure: these patches shouldn't be blocked by the "how
do we detect it" question. I'm glad to see so much engagement with
this problem, but I fear I might have delayed its progress towards a
merge. I know AMD has a follow-up to add SEV-SNP accept_memory support
to finish this all up.

I'll try to get the ear of all the distributions that are tracking
towards providing SEV-SNP-supported images for CSPs to get them on the
release that includes these patches. I'll also see about upstreaming
that EFI driver and EDK2 changes in case there's a slip in the kernel
release and we need this workaround.
--
-Dionna Glaze, PhD (she/her)