Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-181051-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240510211024.556136-1-michael.roth@amd.com> <20240510211024.556136-14-michael.roth@amd.com>
 <ZkU3_y0UoPk5yAeK@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZkU3_y0UoPk5yAeK@google.com>
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 14:45:41 +0200
Message-ID: <CABgObfZXvq8_j+tm8zJ_F=5XAD22rky1JtdUSzV+VgpOXqOn-g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PULL 13/19] KVM: SEV: Implement gmem hook for invalidating
 private pages
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 12:32=E2=80=AFAM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google=
com> wrote:
> > +void sev_gmem_invalidate(kvm_pfn_t start, kvm_pfn_t end)
> > +{
> > +     kvm_pfn_t pfn;
> > +
> > +     pr_debug("%s: PFN start 0x%llx PFN end 0x%llx\n", __func__, start=
, end);
> > +
> > +     for (pfn =3D start; pfn < end;) {
> > +             bool use_2m_update =3D false;
> > +             int rc, rmp_level;
> > +             bool assigned;
> > +
> > +             rc =3D snp_lookup_rmpentry(pfn, &assigned, &rmp_level);
> > +             if (WARN_ONCE(rc, "SEV: Failed to retrieve RMP entry for =
PFN 0x%llx error %d\n",
> > +                           pfn, rc))
> > +                     goto next_pfn;
>
> This is comically trivial to hit, as it fires when running guest_memfd_te=
st on a
> !SNP host.  Presumably the correct fix is to simply do nothing for !sev_s=
np_guest(),
> but that's easier said than done due to the lack of a @kvm in .gmem_inval=
idate().
>
> That too is not a big fix, but that's beside the point.  IMO, the fact th=
at I'm
> the first person to (completely inadvertantly) hit this rather basic bug =
is a
> good hint that we should wait until 6.11 to merge SNP support.

Of course there is an explanation - I usually run all the tests before
pushing anything to kvm/next, here I did not do it because 1) I was
busy with the merge window and 2) I wanted to give exposure to the
code in linux-next, which was the right call indeed but it's beside
the point. Between the clang issue and this one, it's clear that even
though the implementation is 99.99% okay (especially considering the
size), there are a few kinks to fix.

I'll fix everything up and re-push to kvm/next, but I agree that we
shouldn't rush it any further. What really matters is that development
on userspace can proceed.

This also confirms that it's important to replace kvm/next with
kvm/queue in linux-next, since linux-next doesn't care that much about
branches that rebase.

Paolo