Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-159528-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240404185034.3184582-1-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20240404185034.3184582-10-pbonzini@redhat.com>
 <20240423235013.GO3596705@ls.amr.corp.intel.com> <ZimGulY6qyxt6ylO@google.com>
 <20240425011248.GP3596705@ls.amr.corp.intel.com> <CABgObfY2TOb6cJnFkpxWjkAmbYSRGkXGx=+-241tRx=OG-yAZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Zip-JsAB5TIRDJVl@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <Zip-JsAB5TIRDJVl@google.com>
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 07:41:42 +0200
Message-ID: <CABgObfaxAd_J5ufr+rOcND=-NWrOzVsvavoaXuFw_cwDd+e9aA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/11] KVM: guest_memfd: Add interface for populating gmem
 pages with user data
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, michael.roth@amd.com, isaku.yamahata@linux.intel.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 6:00=E2=80=AFPM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.=
com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 3:12=E2=80=AFAM Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@=
intel.com> wrote:
> > > > >   get_user_pages_fast(source addr)
> > > > >   read_lock(mmu_lock)
> > > > >   kvm_tdp_mmu_get_walk_private_pfn(vcpu, gpa, &pfn);
> > > > >   if the page table doesn't map gpa, error.
> > > > >   TDH.MEM.PAGE.ADD()
> > > > >   TDH.MR.EXTEND()
> > > > >   read_unlock(mmu_lock)
> > > > >   put_page()
> > > >
> > > > Hmm, KVM doesn't _need_ to use invalidate_lock to protect against g=
uest_memfd
> > > > invalidation, but I also don't see why it would cause problems.
> >
> > The invalidate_lock is only needed to operate on the guest_memfd, but
> > it's a rwsem so there are no risks of lock inversion.
> >
> > > > I.e. why not
> > > > take mmu_lock() in TDX's post_populate() implementation?
> > >
> > > We can take the lock.  Because we have already populated the GFN of g=
uest_memfd,
> > > we need to make kvm_gmem_populate() not pass FGP_CREAT_ONLY.  Otherwi=
se we'll
> > > get -EEXIST.
> >
> > I don't understand why TDH.MEM.PAGE.ADD() cannot be called from the
> > post-populate hook. Can the code for TDH.MEM.PAGE.ADD be shared
> > between the memory initialization ioctl and the page fault hook in
> > kvm_x86_ops?
>
> Ah, because TDX is required to pre-fault the memory to establish the S-EP=
T walk,
> and pre-faulting means guest_memfd()
>
> Requiring that guest_memfd not have a page when initializing the guest im=
age
> seems wrong, i.e. I don't think we want FGP_CREAT_ONLY.  And not just bec=
ause I
> am a fan of pre-faulting, I think the semantics are bad.

Ok, fair enough. I wanted to do the once-only test in common code but
since SEV code checks for the RMP I can remove that. One less
headache.

Paolo