Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-186837-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 16:47:54 -0700
From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
To: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
Cc: "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>,
	"pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	"isaku.yamahata@gmail.com" <isaku.yamahata@gmail.com>,
	"seanjc@google.com" <seanjc@google.com>,
	"Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com>,
	"sagis@google.com" <sagis@google.com>,
	"isaku.yamahata@linux.intel.com" <isaku.yamahata@linux.intel.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Zhao, Yan Y" <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>,
	"dmatlack@google.com" <dmatlack@google.com>,
	"Aktas, Erdem" <erdemaktas@google.com>,
	"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/16] KVM: x86/tdp_mmu: Support TDX private mapping for
 TDP MMU
Message-ID: <20240522234754.GD212599@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
References: <20240516194209.GL168153@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <55c24448fdf42d383d45601ff6c0b07f44f61787.camel@intel.com>
 <20240517090348.GN168153@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <d7b5a1e327d6a91e8c2596996df3ff100992dc6c.camel@intel.com>
 <20240517191630.GC412700@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <20240520233227.GA29916@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <a071748328e5c0a85d91ea89bb57c4d23cd79025.camel@intel.com>
 <20240521161520.GB212599@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <20240522223413.GC212599@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <9bc661643e3ce11f32f0bac78a2dbfd62d9cd283.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: <9bc661643e3ce11f32f0bac78a2dbfd62d9cd283.camel@intel.com>

On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 11:09:54PM +0000,
"Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2024-05-22 at 15:34 -0700, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> > option 1. Allow per-VM kvm_mmu_max_gfn()
> > Pro: Conceptually easy to understand and it's straightforward to disallow
> >      memslot creation > virtual maxphyaddr
> > Con: overkill for the corner case? The diff is attached.  This is only when
> > user
> >      space creates memlost > virtual maxphyaddr and the guest accesses GPA >
> >      virtual maxphyaddr)
> 
> It breaks the promise that gfn's don't have the share bit which is the pro for
> hiding the shared bit in the tdp mmu iterator.
> 
> > 
> > option 2. Keep kvm_mmu_max_gfn() and add ad hock address check.
> > Pro: Minimal change?
> >      Modify kvm_handel_noslot_fault() or kvm_faultin_pfn() to reject GPA >
> >      virtual maxphyaddr.
> > Con: Conceptually confusing with allowing operation on GFN > virtual
> > maxphyaddr.
> >      The change might be unnatural or ad-hoc because it allow to create
> > memslot
> >      with GPA > virtual maxphyaddr.
> 
> I can't find any actual functional problem to just ignoring it. Just some extra
> work to go over ranges that aren't covered by the root.
> 
> How about we leave option 1 as a separate patch and note it is not functionally
> required? Then we can shed it if needed. At the least it can serve as a
> conversation piece in the meantime.

Ok. We understand the situation correctly. I think it's okay to do nothing for
now with some notes somewhere as record because it doesn't affect much for usual
case.
-- 
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>