Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] x86/kexec: do unconditional WBINVD for bare-metal in relocate_kernel()

[Tom Lendacky]

On 4/10/24 17:55, Huang, Kai wrote:
> On 11/04/2024 4:21 am, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > On 4/7/24 07:44, Kai Huang wrote:

> > > @@ -160,9 +160,13 @@ SYM_CODE_START_LOCAL_NOALIGN(identity_mapped)
> > >       movq    %r9, %cr3
> > >       /*
> > > -     * If SME is active, there could be old encrypted cache line
> > > -     * entries that will conflict with the now unencrypted memory
> > > -     * used by kexec. Flush the caches before copying the kernel.
> > > +     * The kernel could leave caches in incoherent state on SME/TDX
> > > +     * capable platforms.  Just do unconditional WBINVD to avoid
> > > +     * silent memory corruption to the new kernel for these platforms.
> > > +     *
> > > +     * But only do WBINVD for bare-metal because TDX guests and
> > > +     * SEV-ES/SEV-SNP guests will get #VE which the kernel is unable
> > > +     * to handle at this stage.
> >
> > Similar comment here about doing an unconditional WBINVD, but then 
> > qualifying that as only on guests. This is where talking about how 
> > exception handling has been torn down would be good.
>
> OK.
>
> Thinking again, also it might be a good idea to not lose the existing 
> comment for SME, because it somehow justifies why we do WBINVD _HERE_ I 
> suppose?
>
> How about below?
>
>      /*
>       * The kernel could leave caches in incoherent state on SME/TDX
>       * capable platforms.  Flush cache to avoid silent memory
>       * corruption for these platforms.
>       *
>       * For SME, need to flush cache here before copying the kernel.
>       * When it is active, there could be old encrypted cache line
>       * entries that will conflict with the now unencrypted memory
>       * used by kexec.
>       *
>       * Do WBINVD for bare-metal to cover both SME and TDX, as it's
>       * not safe to do WBINVD for TDX and SEV-ES/SEV-SNP guests.
>       * WBINVD results in exception (#VE or #VC) for these guests, and
>       * at this stage kernel is not able to handle such exception any
>       * more because the kernel has torn down IDT.
>       */

Similar to my comment in the other patch, just adding something that 
indicates that the WBINVD isn't necessary for TDX and SEV-ES/SEV-SNP 
(and maybe guests in general) would help. Maybe something like:

	 * Do WBINVD for bare-metal only to cover both SME and TDX. It
	 * isn't necessary to perform a WBINVD in a guest and performing
	 * one could result in an exception (#VE or #VC) for a TDX or
	 * SEV-ES/SEV-SNP guest that can crash the guest since, at this
	 * stage, the kernel has torn down the IDT.

This is all just my opinion, though, and others may read it differently. 
Probably not worth bike-shedding it.

Thanks,
Tom