[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a00bb4f7-ab06-5773-8c8b-3540c75b257a@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 12:08:29 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>,
Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Sergio Lopez <slp@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Dov Murik <dovmurik@...ux.ibm.com>,
Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum <tobin@....com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, tony.luck@...el.com,
Nathaniel McCallum <npmccallum@...hat.com>,
brijesh.ksingh@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 06/40] x86/sev: Add helper functions for
RMPUPDATE and PSMASH instruction
On 7/15/21 11:56 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>>> + /* Retry if another processor is modifying the RMP entry. */
>>>> + do {
>>>> + /* Binutils version 2.36 supports the PSMASH mnemonic. */
>>>> + asm volatile(".byte 0xF3, 0x0F, 0x01, 0xFF"
>>>> + : "=a"(ret)
>>>> + : "a"(spa)
>>>> + : "memory", "cc");
>>>> + } while (ret == FAIL_INUSE);
>>> Should there be some retry limit here for safety? Or do we know that
>>> we'll never be stuck in this loop? Ditto for the loop in rmpupdate.
>> It's probably fine to just leave this. While you could *theoretically*
>> lose this race forever, it's unlikely to happen in practice. If it
>> does, you'll get an easy-to-understand softlockup backtrace which should
>> point here pretty quickly.
> But should failure here even be tolerated? The TDX cases spin on flows that are
> _not_ due to (direct) contenion, e.g. a pending interrupt while flushing the
> cache or lack of randomness when generating a key. In this case, there are two
> CPUs racing to modify the RMP entry, which implies that the final state of the
> RMP entry is not deterministic.
I was envisioning that two different CPUs could try to smash two
*different* 4k physical pages, but collide since they share
a 2M page.
But, in patch 33, this is called via:
> + write_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
> +
> + switch (op) {
> + case SNP_PAGE_STATE_SHARED:
> + rc = snp_make_page_shared(vcpu, gpa, pfn, level);
...
Which should make collisions impossible. Did I miss another call-site?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists