Re: [V4 6/8] KVM: selftests: add library for creating/interacting with SEV guests

[Sean Christopherson]

On Mon, Oct 17, 2022, Peter Gonda wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 12:04 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2022, Peter Gonda wrote:
> > > This refactor sounds good, working on this with a few changes.
> > >
> > > Instead of kvm_init_vm_address_properties() as you suggested I've added this:
> > >
> > > @@ -272,6 +275,8 @@ struct kvm_vm *____vm_create(enum vm_guest_mode
> > >  mode, uint64_t nr_pages)
> > >                 vm->type = KVM_VM_TYPE_ARM_IPA_SIZE(vm->pa_bits);
> > >  #endif
> > >
> > > +       kvm_init_vm_arch(vm);
> >
> > Why?  I'm not necessarily opposed to adding kvm_init_vm_arch(), but since x86
> > "needs" a dedicated hook to unpack the mode, why not piggyback that one?
> >
> 
> Well I since I need to do more than just
> kvm_init_vm_address_properties() I thought the more generic name would
> be better. We need to allocate kvm_vm_arch, find the c-bit, and call
> KVM_SEV_INIT. I can put it back in that switch case if thats better,
> thoughts?
> 
> > > +
> > >         vm_open(vm);
> > >
> > >         /* Limit to VA-bit canonical virtual addresses. */
> > >
> > > And I need to put kvm_arch_vm_post_create() after the vCPUs are
> > > created because the ordering we need is: KVM_SEV_INIT -> Create vCPUS
> > > -> KVM_SEV_LAUNCH_FINISH.
> >
> > Hrm, that's annoying.  Please don't use kvm_arch_vm_post_create() as the name,
> > that's a better fit for what Vishal is doing since the "vm_post_create()" implies
> > that it's called for "all" VM creation paths, where "all" means "everything
> > except barebones VMs".  E.g. in Vishal's series, kvm_arch_vm_post_create() can
> > be used to drop the vm_create_irqchip() call in common code.  In your case, IIUC
> > the hook will be invoked from __vm_create_with_vcpus().
> >
> > I'm a little hesitant to have an arch hook for this case since it can't be
> > all-or-nothing (again, ignoring barebones VMs).  If a "finalize" arch hook is added,
> > then arguably tests that do __vm_create() and manually add vCPUs should call the
> > arch hook, i.e. we'd be adding maintenance burden to tests that in all likelihood
> > don't care about SEV and never will.
> >
> > It's somewhat unfortunate, but dedicated vm_sev_create_with_one_vcpu() and
> > and vm_sev_create_with_vcpus() wrappers is probably the least awful solution.
> 
> Make sense. I think we can go back to your suggestion of
> kvm_init_vm_address_properties() above since we can now do all the
> KVM_SEV_* stuff. I think this means we don't need to add
> VM_MODE_PXXV48_4K_SEV since we can set up the c-bit from inside of
> vm_sev_create_*(), thoughts?

Configuring the C-bit inside vm_sev_create_*() won't work (at least not well).
The C-bit needs to be known before kvm_vm_elf_load(), i.e. can't be handled after
__vm_create(), and needs to be tracked inside the VM, i.e. can't be handled before
__vm_create().

The proposed kvm_init_vm_address_properties() seems like the best fit since the
C-bit (and TDX's S-bit) is stolen from GPA space, i.e. directly affects the other
values computed in that path.

As for the kvm_vm_arch allocation ugliness, when we talked off-list I didn't
consider the need to allocate in kvm_init_vm_address_properties().  That's quite
gross, especially since the pointer will be larger than the thing being allocated.

With that in mind, adding .../include/<arch>/kvm_util.h so that "struct kvm_vm_arch"
can be defined and referenced directly doesn't seem so bad.  Having to stub in the
struct for the other architectures is annoying, but not the end of the world.