[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YWcRhrxLUXfHRig7@google.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 17:04:06 +0000
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...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 Gonda <pgonda@...gle.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>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, tony.luck@...el.com,
marcorr@...gle.com, sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH Part2 v5 37/45] KVM: SVM: Add support to handle MSR based
Page State Change VMGEXIT
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> If we are unable to root cause and fix the bug, I think a viable workaround would
> be to clear the hardware present bit in unrelated SPTEs, but keep the SPTEs
> themselves. The idea mostly the same as the ZAPPED_PRIVATE concept from the initial
> TDX RFC. MMU notifier invalidations, memslot removal, RMP restoration, etc... would
> all continue to work since the SPTEs is still there, and KVM's page fault handler
> could audit any "blocked" SPTE when it's refaulted (I'm pretty sure it'd be
> impossible for the PFN to change, since any PFN change would require a memslot
> update or mmu_notifier invalidation).
>
> The downside to that approach is that it would require walking all SPTEs to do a
> memslot deletion, i.e. we'd lose the "fast zap" behavior. If that's a performance
> issue, the behavior could be opt-in (but not for SNP/TDX).
Another option if we introduce private memslots is to preserve private memslots
on unrelated deletions. The argument being that (a) private memslots are a new
feature so there's no prior uABI to break, and (b) if not zapping private memslot
SPTEs in response to the guest remapping a BAR somehow breaks GPU pass-through,
then the bug is all but guaranteed to be somewhere besides KVM's memslot logic.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists