Re: [PATCH 0/7] KVM: TDX: TD vcpu enter/exit

[Huang, Kai]

On Tue, 2024-11-26 at 09:44 +0800, Binbin Wu wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11/26/2024 6:51 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> 
> [...]
> > When an NMI happens in non-root, the NMI is acknowledged by the CPU prior to
> > performing VM-Exit.  In regular VMX, NMIs are blocked after such VM-Exits.  With
> > TDX, that blocking happens for SEAM root, but the SEAMRET back to VMX root will
> > load interruptibility from the SEAMCALL VMCS, and I don't see any code in the
> > TDX-Module that propagates that blocking to SEAMCALL VMCS.
> I see, thanks for the explanation!
> 
> > 
> > Hmm, actually, this means that TDX has a causality inversion, which may become
> > visible with FRED's NMI source reporting.  E.g. NMI X arrives in SEAM non-root
> > and triggers a VM-Exit.  NMI X+1 becomes pending while SEAM root is active.
> > TDX-Module SEAMRETs to VMX root, NMIs are unblocked, and so NMI X+1 is delivered
> > and handled before NMI X.
> 
> This example can also cause an issue without FRED.
> 1. NMI X arrives in SEAM non-root and triggers a VM-Exit.
> 2. NMI X+1 becomes pending while SEAM root is active.
> 3. TDX-Module SEAMRETs to VMX root, NMIs are unblocked.
> 4. NMI X+1 is delivered and handled before NMI X.
>     (NMI handler could handle all NMI source events, including the source
>      triggered NMI X)
> 5. KVM calls exc_nmi() to handle the VM Exit caused by NMI X
> In step 5, because the source event caused NMI X has been handled, and NMI X
> will not be detected as a second half of back-to-back NMIs, according to
> Linux NMI handler, it will be considered as an unknown NMI.

I don't think KVM should call exc_nmi() anymore if NMI is unblocked upon
SEAMRET.

> 
> Actually, the issue could happen if NMI X+1 occurs after exiting to SEAM root
> mode and before KVM handling the VM-Exit caused by NMI X.
> 

If we can make sure NMI is still blocked upon SEAMRET then everything follows
the current VMX flow IIUC.  We should make that happen IMHO.