Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-181148-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 07:07:03 -0700
In-Reply-To: <BN9PR11MB527614E72C1DF467FF3F4C948CED2@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <20240507061802.20184-1-yan.y.zhao@intel.com> <20240507061924.20251-1-yan.y.zhao@intel.com>
 <BN9PR11MB5276DA8F389AAE7237C7F48E8CE42@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ZjnwiKcmdpDAjMQ5@yzhao56-desk.sh.intel.com> <BN9PR11MB527614E72C1DF467FF3F4C948CED2@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <ZkYTByuHu_IptChR@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] x86/pat: Let pat_pfn_immune_to_uc_mtrr() check MTRR
 for untracked PAT range
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
Cc: Yan Y Zhao <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>, "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, 
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>, 
	"alex.williamson@redhat.com" <alex.williamson@redhat.com>, "jgg@nvidia.com" <jgg@nvidia.com>, 
	"iommu@lists.linux.dev" <iommu@lists.linux.dev>, "pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>, 
	"dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, "luto@kernel.org" <luto@kernel.org>, 
	"peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>, "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>, 
	"mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>, "bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>, "hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>, 
	"corbet@lwn.net" <corbet@lwn.net>, "joro@8bytes.org" <joro@8bytes.org>, "will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>, 
	"robin.murphy@arm.com" <robin.murphy@arm.com>, 
	"baolu.lu@linux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>, Yi L Liu <yi.l.liu@intel.com>, 
	Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

+Tom

On Thu, May 16, 2024, Kevin Tian wrote:
> > From: Zhao, Yan Y <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 5:13 PM
> > 
> > On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 04:26:37PM +0800, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > > > From: Zhao, Yan Y <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 2:19 PM
> > > >
> > > > @@ -705,7 +705,17 @@ static enum page_cache_mode
> > > > lookup_memtype(u64 paddr)
> > > >   */
> > > >  bool pat_pfn_immune_to_uc_mtrr(unsigned long pfn)
> > > >  {
> > > > -	enum page_cache_mode cm = lookup_memtype(PFN_PHYS(pfn));
> > > > +	u64 paddr = PFN_PHYS(pfn);
> > > > +	enum page_cache_mode cm;
> > > > +
> > > > +	/*
> > > > +	 * Check MTRR type for untracked pat range since lookup_memtype()
> > > > always
> > > > +	 * returns WB for this range.
> > > > +	 */
> > > > +	if (x86_platform.is_untracked_pat_range(paddr, paddr + PAGE_SIZE))
> > > > +		cm = pat_x_mtrr_type(paddr, paddr + PAGE_SIZE,
> > > > _PAGE_CACHE_MODE_WB);
> > >
> > > doing so violates the name of this function. The PAT of the untracked
> > > range is still WB and not immune to UC MTRR.
> > Right.
> > Do you think we can rename this function to something like
> > pfn_of_uncachable_effective_memory_type() and make it work under
> > !pat_enabled() too?
> 
> let's hear from x86/kvm maintainers for their opinions.
> 
> My gut-feeling is that kvm_is_mmio_pfn() might be moved into the
> x86 core as the logic there has nothing specific to kvm itself. Also
> naming-wise it doesn't really matter whether the pfn is mmio. The
> real point is to find the uncacheble memtype in the primary mmu
> and then follow it in KVM.

Yeaaaah, we've got an existing problem there.  When AMD's SME is enabled, KVM
uses kvm_is_mmio_pfn() to determine whether or not to map memory into the guest
as encrypted or plain text.  I.e. KVM really does try to use this helper to
detect MMIO vs. RAM.  I highly doubt that actually works in all setups.

For SME, it seems like the best approach would be grab the C-Bit from the host
page tables, similar to how KVM uses host_pfn_mapping_level().

SME aside, I don't have objection to moving kvm_is_mmio_pfn() out of KVM.

> from that point probably a pfn_memtype_uncacheable() reads clearer.

or even just pfn_is_memtype_uc()?