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:   Mon, 28 Nov 2022 16:21:33 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Marc Orr <marcorr@google.com>
Cc:     Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com>,
        Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@google.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com,
        vkuznets@redhat.com, wanpengli@tencent.com, jmattson@google.com,
        joro@8bytes.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
        bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, hpa@zytor.com,
        shuah@kernel.org, yang.zhong@intel.com, ricarkol@google.com,
        aaronlewis@google.com, wei.w.wang@intel.com,
        kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, corbet@lwn.net, hughd@google.com,
        jlayton@kernel.org, bfields@fieldses.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com,
        jun.nakajima@intel.com, dave.hansen@intel.com,
        michael.roth@amd.com, qperret@google.com, steven.price@arm.com,
        ak@linux.intel.com, david@redhat.com, luto@kernel.org,
        vbabka@suse.cz, erdemaktas@google.com, pgonda@google.com,
        nikunj@amd.com, diviness@google.com, maz@kernel.org,
        dmatlack@google.com, axelrasmussen@google.com,
        maciej.szmigiero@oracle.com, mizhang@google.com,
        bgardon@google.com, ackerleytng@google.com
Subject: Re: [V1 PATCH 1/6] KVM: x86: Add support for testing private memory
Message-ID: <Y4TgDZPTXnnoTitB@google.com>
References: <20221111014244.1714148-1-vannapurve@google.com>
 <20221111014244.1714148-2-vannapurve@google.com>
 <20221122100705.GA619277@chaop.bj.intel.com>
 <Y30rqWwDRbH7nQaQ@google.com>
 <CAA03e5EXU-TpZP2tyjEjfAAr9aNNcgmgOX6Rqv7ng+4Xc9H5AQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAA03e5EXU-TpZP2tyjEjfAAr9aNNcgmgOX6Rqv7ng+4Xc9H5AQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 23, 2022, Marc Orr wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 12:06 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> > > > @@ -221,6 +220,9 @@ struct kvm_page_fault {
> > > >     /* The memslot containing gfn. May be NULL. */
> > > >     struct kvm_memory_slot *slot;
> > > >
> > > > +   /* Derived from encryption bits of the faulting GPA for CVMs. */
> > > > +   bool is_private;
> > >
> > > Either we can wrap it with the CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_PRIVATE_MEM_TESTING or if
> > > it looks ugly I can remove the "const" in my code.
> >
> > Hmm, I think we can keep the const.  Similar to the bug in kvm_faultin_pfn()[*],
> > the kvm_slot_can_be_private() is bogus.  A fault should be considered private if
> > it's marked as private, whether or not userspace has configured the slot to be
> > private is irrelevant.  I.e. the xarray is the single source of truth, memslots
> > are just plumbing.
> 
> If we incorporate Sean's suggestion and use xarray as the single
> source of truth, then can we get rid of the
> HAVE_KVM_PRIVATE_MEM_TESTING config?

No, we still want the opt-in config.  

> Specifically, the self test can call the KVM_MEMORY_ENCRYPT_REG_REGION
> ioctl which will set the bits for the private FD within KVM's xarray.

Yes, but that should be disallowed for regular VMs without HAVE_KVM_PRIVATE_MEM_TESTING=y.

> (Maybe this was part of the point that Sean was making; but his
> feedback seemed focused on the discussion about keeping `is_private`
> const, whereas I've been staring at this trying to figure out if we
> can run the UPM selftests on a non-TDX/SNP VM WITHOUT a special
> test-only config. And Sean's idea seems to eliminate the need for the
> awkward CONFIG.)

"need" was always relative.  It's obviously possible to enable any code without a
Kconfig, the question is whether or not it's a good idea to do so.  In this case,
the answer is "no", because allowing private memory opens up a number a of code
paths and thus potential bugs.  And we need something for kvm_arch_has_private_mem()
because returning "true" unconditionally is not correct for regular VMs.