Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 8 Feb 2021 08:46:23 -0800
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@kernel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@intel.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 05/26] x86/traps: Add #VE support for TDX guest
Message-ID: <YCFq3y5b62NsmBhO@google.com>
References: <cover.1612563142.git.sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
 <48a702f536ccf953eee5778023ed6d1a452f6dcf.1612563142.git.sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
 <YCEQiDNSHTGBXBcj@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20210208162301.GA365765@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
 <YCFnwnzgHXNGKW+M@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YCFnwnzgHXNGKW+M@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 08, 2021, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 08:23:01AM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_INTEL_TDX_GUEST
> > > > +DEFINE_IDTENTRY(exc_virtualization_exception)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct ve_info ve;
> > > > +	int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > +	RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_is_watching(), "entry code didn't wake RCU");
> > > > +
> > > > +	/* Consume #VE info before re-enabling interrupts */
> > > 
> > > So what happens if NMI happens here, and triggers a nested #VE ?
> > 
> > Yes that's a gap. We should probably bail out and reexecute the original
> > instruction. The VE handler would need to set a flag for that.

No, NMI cannot happen here.  The TDX-Module "blocks" NMIs until the #VE info is
consumed by the guest.

> > Or alternatively the NMI always gets the VE information and puts
> > it on some internal stack, but that would seem clunkier.
> 
> The same is possible with MCE and #DB I imagine.

The MCE "architecture" for a TDX guest is rather stupid.  The guest is required
to keep CR4.MCE=1, but at least for TDX 1.0 the VMM is not allowed to inject #MC.
So, for better or worse, #MC is a non-issue.

#VE->#DB->#VE would be an issue, presumably this needs to be noinstr (or whatever
it is that prevents #DBs on functions).