Re: Unmapping KVM Guest Memory from Host Kernel

[Brendan Jackman]

On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 18:36, David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure if ASI provides a solution to the problem James is trying
> to solve. ASI creates a separate "restricted" address spaces where, yes,
> guest memory can be not mapped. But any access to guest memory is
>  still allowed. An access will trigger a page fault, the kernel will
> switch to the "full" kernel address space (flushing hardware buffers
> along the way to prevent speculation), and then proceed. i.e. ASI
> doesn't not prevent accessing guest memory through the
> direct map, it just prevents speculation of guest memory through the
> direct map.

Yes, there's also a sense in which ASI is a "smaller hammer" in that
it _only_ protects against hardware-bug exploits.

>  it just prevents speculation of guest memory through the
> direct map.

(Although, this is not _all_ it does, because when returning to the
restricted address space, i.e. right before VM Enter, we have an
opportunity to flush _data buffers_ too. So ASI also mitigates
Meltdown-style attacks, e.g. L1TF, where the speculation-related stuff
all happens on the attacker side)

On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 at 03:46, Manwaring, Derek <derekmn@amazon.com> wrote:
> Brendan,
> I will look into the general ASI approach, thank you. Did you consider
> memfd_secret or a guest_memfd-based approach for Userspace-ASI?

I might be misunderstanding you here: I guess you mean using
memfd_secret as a way for userspace to communicate about which parts
of userspace memory are "secret"?

If I didn't misunderstand: we have not looked into this so far because
we actually just consider _all_ userspace/guest memory to be "secret"
from the perspective of other processes/guests.

> Based on
> Sean's earlier reply to James it sounds like the vision of guest_memfd
> aligns with ASI's goals.

But yes, the more general point seems to make sense, I think I need to
research this topic some more, thanks!