Re: [RFC PATCH v12 18/33] KVM: x86/mmu: Handle page fault for private memory

[Binbin Wu]

On 9/15/2023 10:26 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2023, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 06:55:16PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > ....
> > > +static void kvm_mmu_prepare_memory_fault_exit(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > +					      struct kvm_page_fault *fault)
> > > +{
> > > +	kvm_prepare_memory_fault_exit(vcpu, fault->gfn << PAGE_SHIFT,
> > > +				      PAGE_SIZE, fault->write, fault->exec,
> > > +				      fault->is_private);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int kvm_faultin_pfn_private(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > +				   struct kvm_page_fault *fault)
> > > +{
> > > +	int max_order, r;
> > > +
> > > +	if (!kvm_slot_can_be_private(fault->slot)) {
> > > +		kvm_mmu_prepare_memory_fault_exit(vcpu, fault);
> > > +		return -EFAULT;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	r = kvm_gmem_get_pfn(vcpu->kvm, fault->slot, fault->gfn, &fault->pfn,
> > > +			     &max_order);
> > > +	if (r) {
> > > +		kvm_mmu_prepare_memory_fault_exit(vcpu, fault);
> > > +		return r;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	fault->max_level = min(kvm_max_level_for_order(max_order),
> > > +			       fault->max_level);
> > > +	fault->map_writable = !(fault->slot->flags & KVM_MEM_READONLY);
> > > +
> > > +	return RET_PF_CONTINUE;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > >   static int __kvm_faultin_pfn(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_page_fault *fault)
> > >   {
> > >   	struct kvm_memory_slot *slot = fault->slot;
> > > @@ -4293,6 +4356,14 @@ static int __kvm_faultin_pfn(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_page_fault *fault
> > >   			return RET_PF_EMULATE;
> > >   	}
> > >   
> > > +	if (fault->is_private != kvm_mem_is_private(vcpu->kvm, fault->gfn)) {
> > In patch 21,
> > fault->is_private is set as:
> > 	".is_private = kvm_mem_is_private(vcpu->kvm, cr2_or_gpa >> PAGE_SHIFT)",
> > then, the inequality here means memory attribute has been updated after
> > last check.
> > So, why an exit to user space for converting is required instead of a mere retry?
> >
> > Or, is it because how .is_private is assigned in patch 21 is subjected to change
> > in future?
> This.  Retrying on SNP or TDX would hang the guest.  I suppose we could special
> case VMs where .is_private is derived from the memory attributes, but the
> SW_PROTECTED_VM type is primary a development vehicle at this point.  I'd like to
> have it mimic SNP/TDX as much as possible; performance is a secondary concern.
So when .is_private is derived from the memory attributes, and if I 
didn't miss
anything, there is no explicit conversion mechanism introduced yet so 
far, does
it mean for pure sw-protected VM (withouth SNP/TDX), the page fault will be
handled according to the memory attributes setup by host/user vmm, no 
implicit
conversion will be triggered, right?


> E.g. userspace needs to be prepared for "spurious" exits due to races on SNP and
> TDX, which this can theoretically exercise.  Though the window is quite small so
> I doubt that'll actually happen in practice; which of course also makes it less
> important to retry instead of exiting.