Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto+bounces-4115-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: <20240501085210.2213060-1-michael.roth@amd.com>
 <20240510015822.503071-1-michael.roth@amd.com> <Zj4lebCMsRvGn7ws@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <Zj4lebCMsRvGn7ws@google.com>
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 15:50:26 +0200
Message-ID: <CABgObfboqrSw8=+yZMDi_k9d6L3AoiU5o8d-sRb9Y5AXDTmp5w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 21/23] KVM: MMU: Disable fast path for private memslots
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, 
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, 
	jroedel@suse.de, thomas.lendacky@amd.com, hpa@zytor.com, ardb@kernel.org, 
	vkuznets@redhat.com, jmattson@google.com, luto@kernel.org, 
	dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, slp@redhat.com, pgonda@google.com, 
	peterz@infradead.org, srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com, 
	rientjes@google.com, dovmurik@linux.ibm.com, tobin@ibm.com, bp@alien8.de, 
	vbabka@suse.cz, kirill@shutemov.name, ak@linux.intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com, 
	sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com, alpergun@google.com, 
	jarkko@kernel.org, ashish.kalra@amd.com, nikunj.dadhania@amd.com, 
	pankaj.gupta@amd.com, liam.merwick@oracle.com, papaluri@amd.com, 
	Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 3:47=E2=80=AFPM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.=
com> wrote:
>
> > +      * Since software-protected VMs don't have a notion of a shared v=
s.
> > +      * private that's separate from what KVM is tracking, the above
> > +      * KVM_EXIT_MEMORY_FAULT condition wouldn't occur, so avoid the
> > +      * special handling for that case for now.
>
> Very technically, it can occur if userspace _just_ modified the attribute=
s.  And
> as I've said multiple times, at least for now, I want to avoid special ca=
sing
> SW-protected VMs unless it is *absolutely* necessary, because their sole =
purpose
> is to allow testing flows that are impossible to excercise without SNP/TD=
X hardware.

Yep, it is not like they have to be optimized.

> > +      */
> > +     if (kvm_slot_can_be_private(fault->slot) &&
> > +         !(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KVM_SW_PROTECTED_VM) &&
> > +           vcpu->kvm->arch.vm_type =3D=3D KVM_X86_SW_PROTECTED_VM))
>
> Heh, !(x && y) kills me, I misread this like 4 times.
>
> Anyways, I don't like the heuristic.  It doesn't tie the restriction back=
 to the
> cause in any reasonable way.  Can't this simply be?
>
>         if (fault->is_private !=3D kvm_mem_is_private(vcpu->kvm, fault->g=
fn)
>                 return false;

You beat me to it by seconds. And it can also be guarded by a check on
kvm->arch.has_private_mem to avoid the attributes lookup.

> Which is much, much more self-explanatory.

Both more self-explanatory and more correct.

Paolo