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;
From:   "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
CC:     "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "isaku.yamahata@gmail.com" <isaku.yamahata@gmail.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        "erdemaktas@google.com" <erdemaktas@google.com>,
        Sagi Shahar <sagis@google.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH v6 036/104] KVM: x86/mmu: Explicitly check for MMIO
 spte in fast page fault
Thread-Topic: [RFC PATCH v6 036/104] KVM: x86/mmu: Explicitly check for MMIO
 spte in fast page fault
Thread-Index: AQHYYKy8azwiJuklDUG/yOxG/u6D0q2bn66AgAAQ9AD//7EkAA==
Date:   Tue, 2 Aug 2022 01:46:02 +0000
Message-ID: <29929897856941e0896954011d0ecc34@intel.com>
References: <cover.1651774250.git.isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
 <d1a1da631b44f425d929767fda74c90de2d87a8d.1651774250.git.isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
 <YuhTPxZNhxFs+xjc@google.com> <YuhheIdg47zCDiNi@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <YuhheIdg47zCDiNi@google.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
dlp-version: 11.6.500.17
dlp-product: dlpe-windows
dlp-reaction: no-action
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

> On Mon, Aug 01, 2022, David Matlack wrote:
> > On Thu, May 05, 2022 at 11:14:30AM -0700, isaku.yamahata@intel.com wrot=
e:
> > > From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
> > >
> > > Explicitly check for an MMIO spte in the fast page fault flow.  TDX
> > > will use a not-present entry for MMIO sptes, which can be mistaken
> > > for an access-tracked spte since both have SPTE_SPECIAL_MASK set.
> > >
> > > MMIO sptes are handled in handle_mmio_page_fault for non-TDX VMs, so
> > > this patch does not affect them.  TDX will handle MMIO emulation
> > > through a hypercall instead.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c index
> > > d1c37295bb6e..4a12d862bbb6 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > > @@ -3184,7 +3184,7 @@ static int fast_page_fault(struct kvm_vcpu *vcp=
u,
> struct kvm_page_fault *fault)
> > >  		else
> > >  			sptep =3D fast_pf_get_last_sptep(vcpu, fault->addr,
> &spte);
> > >
> > > -		if (!is_shadow_present_pte(spte))
> > > +		if (!is_shadow_present_pte(spte) || is_mmio_spte(spte))
> >
> > I wonder if this patch is really necessary. is_shadow_present_pte()
> > checks if SPTE_MMU_PRESENT_MASK is set (which is bit 11, not
> > shadow_present_mask). Do TDX VMs set bit 11 in MMIO SPTEs?
>=20
> This patch should be unnecessary, TDX's not-present SPTEs was one of my
> motivations
> for adding MMU_PRESENT.   Bit 11 most definitely must not be set for MMIO
> SPTEs.

As we already discussed, Isaku will drop this patch.