Re: [PATCH v19 062/130] KVM: x86/tdp_mmu: Support TDX private mapping for TDP MMU

[Isaku Yamahata]

On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 10:31:49PM +0000,
"Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, 2024-03-25 at 13:01 -0700, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> >  Also, kvm_tdp_mmu_alloc_root() never returns non-zero, even though mmu_alloc_direct_roots() does.
> > > Probably today when there is one caller it makes mmu_alloc_direct_roots() cleaner to just have
> > > it
> > > return the always zero value from kvm_tdp_mmu_alloc_root(). Now that there are two calls, I
> > > think we
> > > should refactor kvm_tdp_mmu_alloc_root() to return void, and have kvm_tdp_mmu_alloc_root()
> > > return 0
> > > manually in this case.
> > > 
> > > Or maybe instead change it back to returning an hpa_t and then kvm_tdp_mmu_alloc_root() can lose
> > > the
> > > "if (private)" logic at the end too.
> > 
> > Probably we can make void kvm_tdp_mmu_alloc_root() instead of returning always
> > zero as clean up.
> 
> Why is it better than returning an hpa_t once we are calling it twice for mirror and shared roots.

You mean split out "if (private)" from the core part? Makes sense.


> > > >         } else if (shadow_root_level >= PT64_ROOT_4LEVEL) {
> > > >                 root = mmu_alloc_root(vcpu, 0, 0, shadow_root_level);
> > > > @@ -4627,7 +4632,7 @@ int kvm_tdp_page_fault(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_page_fault
> > > > *fault)
> > > >         if (kvm_mmu_honors_guest_mtrrs(vcpu->kvm)) {
> > > >                 for ( ; fault->max_level > PG_LEVEL_4K; --fault->max_level) {
> > > >                         int page_num = KVM_PAGES_PER_HPAGE(fault->max_level);
> > > > -                       gfn_t base = gfn_round_for_level(fault->gfn,
> > > > +                       gfn_t base = gfn_round_for_level(gpa_to_gfn(fault->addr),
> > > >                                                          fault->max_level);
> > > >  
> > > >                         if (kvm_mtrr_check_gfn_range_consistency(vcpu, base, page_num))
> > > > @@ -4662,6 +4667,7 @@ int kvm_mmu_map_tdp_page(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gpa_t gpa, u64
> > > > error_code,
> > > >         };
> > > >  
> > > >         WARN_ON_ONCE(!vcpu->arch.mmu->root_role.direct);
> > > > +       fault.gfn = gpa_to_gfn(fault.addr) & ~kvm_gfn_shared_mask(vcpu->kvm);
> > > >         fault.slot = kvm_vcpu_gfn_to_memslot(vcpu, fault.gfn);
> > > >  
> > > >         r = mmu_topup_memory_caches(vcpu, false);
> > > > @@ -6166,6 +6172,7 @@ static int __kvm_mmu_create(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_mmu *mmu)
> > > >  
> > > >         mmu->root.hpa = INVALID_PAGE;
> > > >         mmu->root.pgd = 0;
> > > > +       mmu->private_root_hpa = INVALID_PAGE;
> > > >         for (i = 0; i < KVM_MMU_NUM_PREV_ROOTS; i++)
> > > >                 mmu->prev_roots[i] = KVM_MMU_ROOT_INFO_INVALID;
> > > >  
> > > > @@ -7211,6 +7218,12 @@ int kvm_mmu_vendor_module_init(void)
> > > >  void kvm_mmu_destroy(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > >  {
> > > >         kvm_mmu_unload(vcpu);
> > > > +       if (tdp_mmu_enabled) {
> > > > +               write_lock(&vcpu->kvm->mmu_lock);
> > > > +               mmu_free_root_page(vcpu->kvm, &vcpu->arch.mmu->private_root_hpa,
> > > > +                               NULL);
> > > > +               write_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->mmu_lock);
> > > 
> > > What is the reason for the special treatment of private_root_hpa here? The rest of the roots are
> > > freed in kvm_mmu_unload(). I think it is because we don't want the mirror to get freed during
> > > kvm_mmu_reset_context()?
> > 
> > It reflects that we don't free Secure-EPT pages during runtime, and free them
> > when destroying the guest.
> 
> Right. If would be great if we could do something like warn on freeing role.private = 1 sp's during
> runtime. It could cover several cases that get worried about in other patches.

Ok, let me move it to kvm_mmu_unload() and try to sprinkle warn-on.


> While looking at how we could do this, I noticed that kvm_arch_vcpu_create() calls kvm_mmu_destroy()
> in an error path. So this could end up zapping/freeing a private root. It should be bad userspace
> behavior too I guess. But the number of edge cases makes me think the case of zapping private sp
> while a guest is running is something that deserves a VM_BUG_ON().

Let me clean the code.  I think we can clean them up.


> > > Oof. For the sake of trying to justify the code, I'm trying to keep track of the pros and cons
> > > of
> > > treating the mirror/private root like a normal one with just a different role bit.
> > > 
> > > The whole “list of roots” thing seems to date from the shadow paging, where there is is critical
> > > to
> > > keep multiple cached shared roots of different CPU modes of the same shadowed page tables. Today
> > > with non-nested TDP, AFAICT, the only different root is for SMM. I guess since the machinery for
> > > managing multiple roots in a list already exists it makes sense to use it for both.
> > > 
> > > For TDX there are also only two, but the difference is, things need to be done in special ways
> > > for
> > > the two roots. You end up with a bunch of loops (for_each_*tdp_mmu_root(), etc) that essentially
> > > process a list of two different roots, but with inner logic tortured to work for the
> > > peculiarities
> > > of both private and shared. An easier to read alternative could be to open code both cases.
> > > 
> > > I guess the major benefit is to keep one set of logic for shadow paging, normal TDP and TDX, but
> > > it
> > > makes the logic a bit difficult to follow for TDX compared to looking at it from the normal
> > > guest
> > > perspective. So I wonder if making special versions of the TDX root traversing operations might
> > > make
> > > the code a little easier to follow. I’m not advocating for it at this point, just still working
> > > on
> > > an opinion. Is there any history around this design point?
> > 
> > The original desire to keep the modification contained, and not introduce a
> > function for population and zap.  With the open coding, do you want something
> > like the followings?  We can try it and compare the outcome.
> > 
> > For zapping
> >   if (private) {
> >      __for_each_tdp_mmu_root_yield_safe_private()
> >        private case
> >   } else {
> >      __for_each_tdp_mmu_root_yield_safe()
> >         shared case
> >   }
> > 
> > For fault,
> > kvm_tdp_mmu_map()
> >   if (private) {
> >     tdp_mmu_for_each_pte_private(iter, mmu, raw_gfn, raw_gfn + 1)
> >       private case
> >   } else {
> >     tdp_mmu_for_each_pte_private(iter, mmu, raw_gfn, raw_gfn + 1)
> >       shared case
> >   }
> 
> I was wondering about something limited to the operations that iterate over the roots. So not
> keeping private_root_hpa in the list of roots where it has to be carefully protected from getting
> zapped or get its gfn adjusted, and instead open coding the private case in the higher level zapping
> operations. For normal VM's the private case would be a NOP.
> 
> Since kvm_tdp_mmu_map() already grabs private_root_hpa manually, it wouldn't change in this idea. I
> don't know how much better it would be though. I think you are right we would have to create them
> and compare. 

Given the large page support gets complicated, it would be worthwhile to try,
I think.
-- 
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx>