Re: [PATCH V2 1/1] x86/tdx: Route safe halt execution via tdx_safe_halt()

[Kirill A. Shutemov]

On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 09:01:41AM -0800, Vishal Annapurve wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 8:00 AM Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> > >
> > > Are you hinting towards a model where TDX guest prohibits such call
> > > sites from being configured? I am not sure if it's a sustainable model
> > > if we just rely on the host not advertising these features as the
> > > guest kernel can still add new paths that are not controlled by the
> > > host that lead to *_safe_halt().
> >
> > I've asked TDX module folks to provide additional information in ve_info
> > to help handle STI shadow correctly. They will implement it, but it will
> > take some time.
> 
> What will the final solution look like?

VMX has GUEST_INTERRUPTIBILITY_INFO. This info is going to passed via
ve_info. Details are TBD.

With the info at hands, we can check if we are in STI shadow (regardless
of instruction) and skip interrupt enabling in that case.
 
> >
> > So we need some kind of stopgap until we have it.
> 
> Does it make sense to carry the patch suggested by Sean [1] as a
> stopgap for now?
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Z5l6L3Hen9_Y3SGC@xxxxxxxxxx/

I like it more than paravirt calls. And in the future, HLT check can be
replaced with STI shadow check if the info is available.

> >
> > I am reluctant to commit to paravirt calls for this workaround. They will
> > likely stick forever. It is possible, I would like to avoid them. If not,
> > oh well.
> >
> > > > > 2) acpi_safe_halt() -> safe_halt() -> raw_safe_halt() -> arch_safe_halt()
> > > >
> > > > Have you checked why you get there? I don't see a reason for TDX guest to
> > > > get into ACPI idle stuff. We don't have C-states to manage.
> > >
> > > Apparently userspace VMM is advertising pblock_address through SSDT
> > > tables in my configuration which causes guests to enable ACPI cpuidle
> > > drivers. Do you know if future generations of TDX hardware will not
> > > support different c-states for TDX VMs?
> >
> > I have very limited understanding of power management, but I don't see how
> > C-states can be meaningfully supported by any virtualized environment.
> > To me, C-states only make sense for baremetal.
> 
> One possibility is that host can convey guests about using "mwait" as
> cstate entry mechanism as an alternative to halt if supported.

You don't need cpuidle for that. If MWAIT is supported, just enumerate
MWAIT to the guest and select_idle_routine() will pick it over
TDX-specific one.

-- 
  Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov