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;
Date:   Wed, 23 Nov 2022 17:37:33 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc:     "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com>,
        "peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        "bagasdotme@gmail.com" <bagasdotme@gmail.com>,
        "ak@linux.intel.com" <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        "Wysocki, Rafael J" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Chatre, Reinette" <reinette.chatre@intel.com>,
        "pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>,
        "kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        "Shahar, Sagi" <sagis@google.com>,
        "imammedo@redhat.com" <imammedo@redhat.com>,
        "Gao, Chao" <chao.gao@intel.com>,
        "Brown, Len" <len.brown@intel.com>,
        "sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
        "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>,
        "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 06/20] x86/virt/tdx: Shut down TDX module in case of
 error
Message-ID: <Y35aXX5b2Ed4vc6y@google.com>
References: <48505089b645019a734d85c2c29f3c8ae2dbd6bd.1668988357.git.kai.huang@intel.com>
 <Y3ySxEr64HkUaEDq@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <52b2be9b-defd-63ce-4cb2-96cd624a95a6@intel.com>
 <Y30fUS5/JClpBHVc@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <b3938f3a-e4f8-675a-0c0e-4b4618019145@intel.com>
 <da7ae78c2d9fed125f160744af5be75f34b1b1d7.camel@intel.com>
 <791bf9a2-a079-3cd6-90a3-42dbb332a38c@intel.com>
 <9f1ea2639839305dd8b82694b3d8c697803f43a1.camel@intel.com>
 <Y35IW/PnbxinKHOL@google.com>
 <168ca2b3-ffac-31c4-0b83-2d0ee75f34a5@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <168ca2b3-ffac-31c4-0b83-2d0ee75f34a5@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 23, 2022, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 11/23/22 08:20, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> >>> Why is it done that way?
> >>>
> >>> Can it be changed to delay TDX initialization until the first TDX guest
> >>> needs to run?
> >>>
> >> Sean suggested.
> >>
> >> Hi Sean, could you commenet?
> > Waiting until the first TDX guest is created would result in false advertising,
> > as KVM wouldn't know whether or not TDX is actually supported until that first
> > VM is created.  If we can guarantee that TDH.SYS.INIT will fail if and only if
> > there is a kernel bug, then I would be ok deferring the "enabling" until the
> > first VM is created.
> 
> There's no way we can guarantee _that_.  For one, the PAMT* allocations
> can always fail.  I guess we could ask sysadmins to fire up a guest to
> "prime" things, but that seems a little silly.  Maybe that would work as
> the initial implementation that we merge, but I suspect our users will
> demand more determinism, maybe a boot or module parameter.

Oh, you mean all of TDX initialization?  I thought "initialization" here mean just
doing tdx_enable().

Yeah, that's not going to be a viable option.  Aside from lacking determinisim,
it would be all too easy to end up on a system with fragmented memory that can't
allocate the PAMTs post-boot.