Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-118017-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:10:33 -0700
From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
To: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com>
Cc: "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
	"Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>,
	"Zhang, Tina" <tina.zhang@intel.com>,
	"Yuan, Hang" <hang.yuan@intel.com>,
	"seanjc@google.com" <seanjc@google.com>,
	"Chen, Bo2" <chen.bo@intel.com>,
	"sagis@google.com" <sagis@google.com>,
	"isaku.yamahata@gmail.com" <isaku.yamahata@gmail.com>,
	"Aktas, Erdem" <erdemaktas@google.com>,
	"pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	isaku.yamahata@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 130/130] RFC: KVM: x86, TDX: Add check for
 KVM_SET_CPUID2
Message-ID: <20240325211033.GI2357401@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
References: <cover.1708933498.git.isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
 <d394938197044b40bbe6d9ce2402f72a66a99e80.1708933498.git.isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
 <e1eb51e258138cd145ec9a461677304cb404cc43.camel@intel.com>
 <cfe0def93375acf0459f891cc77cb68d779bd08c.camel@intel.com>
 <f019df484b2fb636b34f64b1126afa7d2b086c88.camel@intel.com>
 <bea6cb485ba67f0160c6455c77cf75e5b6f8eaf8.camel@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <bea6cb485ba67f0160c6455c77cf75e5b6f8eaf8.camel@intel.com>

On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 11:14:21AM +0000,
"Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 2024-03-22 at 16:06 +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> > On Fri, 2024-03-22 at 07:10 +0000, Huang, Kai wrote:
> > > > I see that this was suggested by Sean, but can you explain the
> > > > problem
> > > > that this is working around? From the linked thread, it seems like
> > > > the
> > > > problem is what to do when userspace also calls SET_CPUID after
> > > > already
> > > > configuring CPUID to the TDX module in the special way. The choices
> > > > discussed included:
> > > > 1. Reject the call
> > > > 2. Check the consistency between the first CPUID configuration and
> > > > the
> > > > second one.
> > > > 
> > > > 1 is a lot simpler, but the reasoning for 2 is because "some KVM
> > > > code
> > > > paths rely on guest CPUID configuration" it seems. Is this a
> > > > hypothetical or real issue? Which code paths are problematic for
> > > > TDX/SNP?
> > > 
> > > There might be use case that TDX guest wants to use some CPUID which
> > > isn't handled by the TDX module but purely by KVM.  These (PV) CPUIDs
> > > need to be
> > > provided via KVM_SET_CPUID2.
> > 
> > Right, but are there any needed today? 
> > 
> 
> I am not sure.  Isaku may know better?

It's not needed to boot TD.  The check is safe guard.  The multiple of source of
cpuids can be inconsistent.
-- 
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>