Re: SEV guest regression in 4.18

[Sean Christopherson]

On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 01:26:55PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 22/08/2018 22:11, Brijesh Singh wrote:
> > 
> > Yes, this is one of approach I have in mind. It will avoid splitting
> > the larger pages; I am thinking that early in boot code we can lookup
> > for this special section and decrypt it in-place and probably maps with
> > C=0. Only downside, it will increase data section footprint a bit
> > because we need to align this section to PM_SIZE.
> 
> If you can ensure it doesn't span a PMD, maybe it does not need to be
> aligned; you could establish a C=0 mapping of the whole 2M around it.

Wouldn't that result in exposing/leaking whatever code/data happened
to reside on the same 2M page (or corrupting it if the entire page
isn't decrypted)?  Or are you suggesting that we'd also leave the
encrypted mapping intact?  If it's the latter...

Does hardware include the C-bit in the cache tag?  I.e are the C=0 and
C=1 variations of the same PA treated as different cache lines?  If
so, we could also treat the unencrypted variation as a separate PA by
defining it to be (ACTUAL_PA | (1 << x86_phys_bits)), (re)adjusting
x86_phys_bits if necessary to get the kernel to allow the address.
init_memory_mapping() could then alias every PA with an unencrypted
VA mapping, which would allow the kernel to access any PA unencrypted
by using virt_to_phys() and phys_to_virt() to translate an encrypted
VA to an unencrypted VA.  It would mean doubling INIT_PGD_PAGE_COUNT,
but that'd be a one-time cost regardless of how many pages needed to
be accessed with C=0.

> Paolo