Re: [PATCH v8 5/5] x86/tdx: Add Quote generation support

[Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com>]

On Thu, 2022-07-21 at 09:08 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 6/8/22 19:52, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> > For shared buffer allocation, alternatives like using the DMA API is
> > also considered. Although it simpler to use, it is not preferred because
> > dma_alloc_*() APIs require a valid bus device as argument, which would
> > need converting the attestation driver into a platform device driver.
> > This is unnecessary, and since the attestation driver does not do real
> > DMA, there is no need to use real DMA APIs.
> 
> Let's actually try to walk through the requirements for the memory
> allocation here.
> 
>  1. The guest kernel needs to allocate some guest physical memory
>     for the attestation data buffer
>  2. The guest physical memory must be mapped by the guest so that
>     it can be read/written.
>  3. The guest mapping must be a "TDX Shared" mapping.  Since all
>     guest physical memory is "TDX Private" by default, something
>     must convert the memory from Private->Shared.
>  4. If there are alias mappings with "TDX Private" page table
>     permissions, those mappings must never be used while the page is
>     in its shared state.
>     4a. load_unaligned_zeropad() must be prevented from being used
> 	on the page immediately preceding a Private alias to a Shared
>  	page.
>  5. Actions that increasingly fracture the direct map must be avoided.
>     Attestation may happen many times and repeated allocations that
>     fracture the direct map have performance consequences.
>  6. A softer requirement: presuming that bounce buffers won't be used
>     for TDX devices *forever*, it would be nice to use a mechanism that
>     will continue to work on systems that don't have swiotlb on.
> 
> I think we've talked about three different solutions:
> 
> == vmalloc() ==
> 
> So, let's say we used a relatively plain vmalloc().  That's great for
> #1->#3 as long as the vmalloc() mapping gets the "TDX Shared" bit set
> properly on its PTEs.  But, it falls over for *either* #4 or #5.  If it
> leaves the direct map alone, it's exposed to load_unaligned_zeropad().
> If it unmaps the memory from the direct map, it runs afoul of #5.
> 
> == order-1 + vmap() ==
> 
> Let's now consider a vmalloc() variant: allocate a bunch of order-1
> pages and vmap() page[1], leaving page[0] as a guard page against
> load_unaligned_zeropad() on the direct map.  That works, but it's an
> annoying amount of code.
> 
> == swiotlb pages ==
> 
> Using the swiotlb bounce buffer pages is the other proposed option.
> They already have a working kernel mapping and have already been
> converted.  They are mitigated against load_unaligned_zeropad().  They
> do cause direct map fracturing, but only once since they're allocated
> statically.  They don't increasingly degrade things.  It's a one-time
> cost.  Their interaction with #6 is not great.
> 
> Did I miss anything?  Does that accurately capture where we are?

We can also reserve a dedicated CMA, but Kirill didn't like it.

-- 
Thanks,
-Kai