RE: [PATCHv3 0/3] x86/tdx: Fix one more load_unaligned_zeropad() issue

From: Michael Kelley (LINUX)
Date: Mon Jul 10 2023 - 10:17:48 EST


From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@xxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 6:59 AM
>
> On 7/9/23 01:09, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 08, 2023 at 11:53:08PM +0000, Michael Kelley (LINUX) wrote:
> >> From: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, July 7, 2023 7:07 AM
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 04:48:32PM +0000, Michael Kelley (LINUX) wrote:
> >>>> From: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, June 6,
> 2023 2:56 AM
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >>>
> >>> It only addresses the problem that happens on transition, but
> >>> load_unaligned_zeropad() is still a problem for the shared mappings in
> >>> general, after transition is complete. Like if load_unaligned_zeropad()
> >>> steps from private to shared mapping and shared mapping triggers #VE,
> >>> kernel should be able to handle it.
> >>
> >> I'm showing my ignorance of TDX architectural details, but what's the
> >> situation where shared mappings in general can trigger a #VE? How
> >> do such situations get handled for references that aren't from
> >> load_unaligned_zeropad()?
> >>
> >
> > Shared mappings are under host/VMM control. It can just not map the page
> > in shared-ept and trigger ept-violation #VE.
> >
> >>> Any comments?
> >>
> >> This looks good to me. I applied the diff to a TDX VM running on
> >> Hyper-V. When a load_unaligned_zeropad() occurs on a page that is
> >> transitioning between private and shared, the zeropad fixup is now
> >> done correctly via the #VE handler. (This is *without* my RFC patch to
> >> mark the pages invalid during a transition.)
> >
> > Great.
> >
> > I am at vacation for the next two weeks. I will prepare a proper patch
> > when I am back. Feel free to make patch yourself if you feel it is urgent.
> >
>
> Michael,
>
> Are you still pursuing the RFC patch, then? Just trying to decide whether
> a patch will be needed for SNP...
>

Yes, I'm still pursuing the RFC patch. In addition to solving the SNP
problems, I think there are some benefits with TDX. But I need to have
further discussion with Kirill, which may be delayed a bit while he's out
on vacation.

Michael