Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <b1ddd8eb-0165-7d31-e253-d69c3a8e7db9@intel.com>
Date:   Sun, 27 Feb 2022 20:32:38 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.5.0
Content-Language: en-US
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de,
        luto@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
        sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com, aarcange@redhat.com,
        ak@linux.intel.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com, david@redhat.com,
        hpa@zytor.com, jgross@suse.com, jmattson@google.com,
        joro@8bytes.org, jpoimboe@redhat.com, knsathya@kernel.org,
        pbonzini@redhat.com, sdeep@vmware.com, seanjc@google.com,
        tony.luck@intel.com, vkuznets@redhat.com, wanpengli@tencent.com,
        thomas.lendacky@amd.com, brijesh.singh@amd.com, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220224155630.52734-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <20220224155630.52734-18-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <dd370f1e-e9f9-0843-da24-83ad6f99ec76@intel.com>
 <20220228011627.63355pcbpn7tosiy@black.fi.intel.com>
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 17/30] x86/tdx: Add port I/O emulation
In-Reply-To: <20220228011627.63355pcbpn7tosiy@black.fi.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2/27/22 17:16, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> Anyway, it is in our plans to sort it out, but it is not in scope of core
> enabling. Let's make it functional first.

Yeah, but we need to know what these plans are.  There's still a _bit_
too much hand-waving and "trust us" going on in this set.

If this can induce extra SIGSEV's in userspace that aren't possible in
non-TDX systems, please call that out.

For instance, something like this in the changelog of this patch would
be really nice:

	== Userspace Implications ==

	The ioperm() facility allows userspace access to I/O
	instructions like inb/outb.  Among other things, this allows
	writing userspace device drivers.

	This series has no special handling for ioperm().  Users
	will be able to successfully request I/O permissions but will
	induce a #VE on their first I/O instruction.  If this is
	undesirable users can <add advice here about LOCKDOWN_IOPORT>

	More robust handling of this situation (denying ioperm() in
	all TDX guests) will be addressed in follow-on work.

That says: This causes a problem.  The problem looks like this.  It can
be addressed now by doing $FOO or later by doing $BAR.

But, the *problem* needs to be called out.  That way, folks can actually
think about the problem rather than just reading a happy changelog that
neglects to mention any of the problems that the patch leaves in its wake.

The same goes for the CPUID mess.  I'm not demanding a full solution in
the patch or the series even.  But, what I am demanding is a full
_problem_ disclosure.