Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-147543-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 13:58:41 -0700
In-Reply-To: <6cd2a9ce-f46a-44d0-9f76-8e493b940dc4@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1708933498.git.isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
 <f028d43abeadaa3134297d28fb99f283445c0333.1708933498.git.isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
 <d45bb93fb5fc18e7cda97d587dad4a1c987496a1.camel@intel.com>
 <20240322212321.GA1994522@ls.amr.corp.intel.com> <461b78c38ffb3e59229caa806b6ed22e2c847b77.camel@intel.com>
 <ZhawUG0BduPVvVhN@google.com> <8afbb648-b105-4e04-bf90-0572f589f58c@intel.com>
 <Zhftbqo-0lW-uGGg@google.com> <6cd2a9ce-f46a-44d0-9f76-8e493b940dc4@intel.com>
Message-ID: <Zh7KrSwJXu-odQpN@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 023/130] KVM: TDX: Initialize the TDX module when
 loading the KVM intel kernel module
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com>
Cc: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>, Tina Zhang <tina.zhang@intel.com>, 
	Hang Yuan <hang.yuan@intel.com>, Bo Chen <chen.bo@intel.com>, 
	"sagis@google.com" <sagis@google.com>, "isaku.yamahata@gmail.com" <isaku.yamahata@gmail.com>, 
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Erdem Aktas <erdemaktas@google.com>, 
	"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, "pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>, 
	"isaku.yamahata@linux.intel.com" <isaku.yamahata@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Fri, Apr 12, 2024, Kai Huang wrote:
> On 12/04/2024 2:03 am, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024, Kai Huang wrote:
> > > I can certainly follow up with this and generate a reviewable patchset if I
> > > can confirm with you that this is what you want?
> > 
> > Yes, I think it's the right direction.  I still have minor concerns about VMX
> > being enabled while kvm.ko is loaded, which means that VMXON will _always_ be
> > enabled if KVM is built-in.  But after seeing the complexity that is needed to
> > safely initialize TDX, and after seeing just how much complexity KVM already
> > has because it enables VMX on-demand (I hadn't actually tried removing that code
> > before), I think the cost of that complexity far outweighs the risk of "always"
> > being post-VMXON.
> 
> Does always leaving VMXON have any actual damage, given we have emergency
> virtualization shutdown?

Being post-VMXON increases the risk of kexec() into the kdump kernel failing.
The tradeoffs that we're trying to balance are: is the risk of kexec() failing
due to the complexity of the emergency VMX code higher than the risk of us breaking
things in general due to taking on a ton of complexity to juggle VMXON for TDX?

After seeing the latest round of TDX code, my opinion is that being post-VMXON
is less risky overall, in no small part because we need that to work anyways for
hosts that are actively running VMs.

> > Within reason, I recommend getting feedback from others before you spend _too_
> > much time on this.  It's entirely possible I'm missing/forgetting some other angle.
> 
> Sure.  Could you suggest who should we try to get feedback from?
> 
> Perhaps you can just help to Cc them?

I didn't have anyone in particular in mind, I just really want *someone* to weigh
in as a sanity check.