Date:   Mon, 30 Jan 2023 19:15:48 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com>
Cc:     "sean.j.christopherson@intel.com" <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
        "dmatlack@google.com" <dmatlack@google.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: <Y9gXZBS2zl9nahtt@google.com>
References: <Y8ndcGHUHQjHfbF9@google.com>
 <CALzav=d4vwHTnXP8wetA_Hqd3Tzc_NLp=3M-akwNSN1-ToL+Eg@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y8st2PjGDQ+Q0LlW@google.com>
 <3951e178bc38191074f5cccadc442212ff15c737.camel@intel.com>
 <Y87GzHrx8vxZLBEJ@google.com>
 <e5912f7d04ce7a27a68ce4328fc50ce594295c6c.camel@intel.com>
 <Y9K4Mnx/Je4j+RsD@google.com>
 <144de0bf7cc86dd7807f1b559c3269bccbb56317.camel@intel.com>
 <Y9L31cqsKvr4boGU@google.com>
 <d335eaba5b8235cfc4f8105352bc7fe916b5b309.camel@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d335eaba5b8235cfc4f8105352bc7fe916b5b309.camel@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 26, 2023, Huang, Kai wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-01-26 at 21:59 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Hrm, but even if TDX takes a read-lock, there's still the problem of it needing
> > to walk the upper levels, i.e. KVM needs to keep mid-level page tables reachable
> > until they're fully removed.  Blech.  That should be a non-issue at this time
> > though, as I don't think KVM will ever REMOVE a page table of a live guest.  I
> > need to look at the PROMOTE/DEMOTE flows...
> 
> In this series, if I read correctly, when slot is removed/moved, private
> mappings are zapped too.  It's kinda buried in:
> 
> [PATCH v11 043/113] KVM: x86/tdp_mmu: Don't zap private pages for unsupported
> cases

That should be ok, only leaf SPTEs will be zapped in that case.