Re: "KVM: x86/mmu: Overhaul TDP MMU zapping and flushing" breaks SVM on Hyper-V
From: Paolo Bonzini
Date: Mon Feb 13 2023 - 14:57:13 EST
On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 8:12 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > My reading of the spec[1] is that HV_X64_NESTED_ENLIGHTENED_TLB will cause
> > svm_flush_tlb_current to behave (in Intel parlance) as an INVVPID rather
> > than an INVEPT.
>
> Oh! Good catch! Yeah, that'll be a problem.
>
> > So svm_flush_tlb_current has to be changed to also add a
> > call to HvCallFlushGuestPhysicalAddressSpace. I'm not sure if that's a good
> > idea though.
>
> That's not strictly necessary, e.g. flushes from kvm_invalidate_pcid() and
> kvm_post_set_cr4() don't need to effect a full flush. I believe the virtual
> address flush is also sufficient for avic_activate_vmcb(). Nested (from KVM's
> perspective, i.e. running L3) can just be mutually exclusive with
> HV_X64_NESTED_ENLIGHTENED_TLB.
>
> That just leaves kvm_mmu_new_pgd()'s force_flush_and_sync_on_reuse and the
> aforementioned kvm_mmu_load().
>
> That said, the above cases where a virtual address flush is sufficient are
> rare operations when using NPT, so adding a new KVM_REQ_TLB_FLUSH_ROOT or
> whatever probably isn't worth doing.
>
> > First, that's a TLB shootdown rather than just a local thing;
> > flush_tlb_current is supposed to be relatively cheap, and there would be a
> > lot of them because of the unconditional calls to
> > nested_svm_transition_tlb_flush on vmentry/vmexit.
>
> This isn't a nested scenario for KVM though.
Yes, but svm_flush_tlb_current() *is* also used in nested scenarios so
it's like you said below---you would have to disable enlightened TLB
when EFER.SVME=1 or something like that.
> > Depending on the performance results of adding the hypercall to
> > svm_flush_tlb_current, the fix could indeed be to just disable usage of
> > HV_X64_NESTED_ENLIGHTENED_TLB.
>
> Minus making nested SVM (L3) mutually exclusive, I believe this will do the trick:
>
> + /* blah blah blah */
> + hv_flush_tlb_current(vcpu);
> +
Yes, it's either this or disabling the feature.
Paolo