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:   Fri, 20 Jan 2023 00:16:48 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com>
Cc:     "dmatlack@google.com" <dmatlack@google.com>,
        "sean.j.christopherson@intel.com" <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
        "Shahar, Sagi" <sagis@google.com>,
        "isaku.yamahata@gmail.com" <isaku.yamahata@gmail.com>,
        "Aktas, Erdem" <erdemaktas@google.com>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        "zhi.wang.linux@gmail.com" <zhi.wang.linux@gmail.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 018/113] KVM: TDX: create/destroy VM structure
Message-ID: <Y8ndcGHUHQjHfbF9@google.com>
References: <20230114111621.00001840@gmail.com>
 <Y8bFCb+rs25dKcMY@google.com>
 <20230117214414.00003229@gmail.com>
 <Y8cLcY12zDWqO8nd@google.com>
 <Y8cMnjHFNIFaoX27@google.com>
 <eadc4a4e37ea0b04b8348395244b792bd34a762d.camel@intel.com>
 <Y8ljwsrrBBdh1aYw@google.com>
 <02b0e551647beed9ec3a2fefd3b659eb52c4846c.camel@intel.com>
 <Y8m34OEVBfL7Q4Ns@google.com>
 <1c71eda35e03372f29162c6a5286f5b4d1e1d7e1.camel@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1c71eda35e03372f29162c6a5286f5b4d1e1d7e1.camel@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 19, 2023, Huang, Kai wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-01-19 at 21:36 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > The least invasive idea I have is expand the TDP MMU's concept of "frozen" SPTEs
> > and freeze (a.k.a. lock) the SPTE (KVM's mirror) until the corresponding S-EPT
> > update completes.
> 
> This will introduce another "having-to-wait while SPTE is frozen" problem I
> think, which IIUC means (one way is) you have to do some loop and retry, perhaps
> similar to yield_safe.

Yes, but because the TDP MMU already freezes SPTEs (just for a shorter duration),
I'm 99% sure all of the affected flows already know how to yield/bail when necessary.

The problem with the zero-step mitigation is that it could (theoretically) cause
a "busy" error on literally any accesses, which makes it infeasible for KVM to have
sane behavior.  E.g. freezing SPTEs to avoid the ordering issues isn't necessary
when holding mmu_lock for write, whereas the zero-step madness brings everything
into play.