Re: [PATCH 00/10] Handle set_memory_XXcrypted() errors

[Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>]

On 10/19/23 10:05, Michael Kelley (LINUX) wrote:
> I'm more in favor of the "simply panic" approach.   What you've done
> in your Patch 1 and Patch 2 is an intriguing way to try to get the memory
> back into a consistent state.  But I'm concerned that there are failure
> modes that make it less than 100% foolproof (more on that below).  If
> we can't be sure that the memory is back in a consistent state, then the
> original problem isn't fully solved.   I'm also not sure of the value of
> investing effort to ensure that some errors cases are handled without
> panic'ing.  The upside benefit of not panic'ing seems small compared to
> the downside risk of leaking guest VM data to the host.

panic() should be a last resort.  We *always* continue unless we know
that something is so bad that we're going to make things worse by
continuing to run.

We shouldn't panic() on the first little thing that goes wrong.  If
folks want *that*, then they can set panic_on_warn.

> My concern about Patches 1 and 2 is that the encryption bit in the PTE
> is not a reliable indicator of the state that the host thinks the page is
> in.  Changing the state requires two steps (in either order):  1) updating
> the guest VM PTEs, and 2) updating the host's view of the page state.
> Both steps may be done on a range of pages.  If #2 fails, the guest
> doesn't know which pages in the batch were updated and which were
> not, so the guest PTEs may not match the host state.  In such a case,
> set_memory_encrypted() could succeed based on checking the
> PTEs when in fact the host still thinks some of the pages are shared.
> Such a mismatch will produce a guest panic later on if the page is
> referenced.

I think that's OK.  In the end, the page state is controlled by the VMM.
 The guest has zero control.  All it can do is make the PTEs consistent
and hold on for dear life.  That's a general statement and not specific
to this problem.

In other words, it's fine for CoCo folks to be paranoid.  It's fine for
them to set panic_on_{warn,oops,whatever}=1.  But it's *NOT* fine to say
that every TDX guest will want to do that.