Re: [PATCH 10/16] KVM: x86/tdp_mmu: Support TDX private mapping for TDP MMU

[Paolo Bonzini]

On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 9:16 PM Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 06:16:26PM +0000,
> "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2024-05-17 at 02:03 -0700, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> > >
> > > On top of your patch, I created the following patch to remove
> > > kvm_gfn_for_root().
> > > Although I haven't tested it yet, I think the following shows my idea.
> > >
> > > - Add gfn_shared_mask to struct tdp_iter.
> > > - Use iter.gfn_shared_mask to determine the starting sptep in the root.
> > > - Remove kvm_gfn_for_root()
> >
> > I investigated it.
>
> Thanks for looking at it.
>
> > After this, gfn_t's never have shared bit. It's a simple rule. The MMU mostly
> > thinks it's operating on a shared root that is mapped at the normal GFN Only
> > the iterator knows that the shared PTEs are actually in a different location.
> >
> > There are some negative side effects:
> > 1. The struct kvm_mmu_page's gfn doesn't match it's actual mapping anymore.
> > 2. As a result of above, the code that flushes TLBs for a specific GFN will be
> > confused. It won't functionally matter for TDX, just look buggy to see flushing
> > code called with the wrong gfn.
>
> flush_remote_tlbs_range() is only for Hyper-V optimization.  In other cases,
> x86_op.flush_remote_tlbs_range = NULL or the member isn't defined at compile
> time.  So the remote tlb flush falls back to flushing whole range.  I don't
> expect TDX in hyper-V guest.  I have to admit that the code looks superficially
> broken and confusing.

You could add an "&& kvm_has_private_root(kvm)" to
kvm_available_flush_remote_tlbs_range(), since
kvm_has_private_root(kvm) is sort of equivalent to "there is no 1:1
correspondence between gfn and PTE to be flushed".

I am conflicted myself, but the upsides below are pretty substantial.

Paolo

> > On the positive effects side:
> > 1. There is code that passes sp->gfn into things that it shouldn't (if it has
> > shared bits) like memslot lookups.
> > 2. Also code that passes iter.gfn into things it shouldn't like
> > kvm_mmu_max_mapping_level().
> >
> > These places are not called by TDX, but if you know that gfn's might include
> > shared bits, then that code looks buggy.
> >
> > I think the solution in the diff is more elegant then before, because it hides
> > what is really going on with the shared root. That is both good and bad Can we
> > accept the downsides?
>
> Kai, do you have any thoughts?
> --
> Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx>
>