[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0bd5a2f95a0f309ff35d511ce832c5f11abf6013.camel@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2023 21:50:22 +0000
From: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
To: "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC: "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"david@...hat.com" <david@...hat.com>,
"bagasdotme@...il.com" <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"Wysocki, Rafael J" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Chatre, Reinette" <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"nik.borisov@...e.com" <nik.borisov@...e.com>,
"Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "Shahar, Sagi" <sagis@...gle.com>,
"imammedo@...hat.com" <imammedo@...hat.com>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "Gao, Chao" <chao.gao@...el.com>,
"isaku.yamahata@...il.com" <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>,
"Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>,
"sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com"
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 07/22] x86/virt/tdx: Add skeleton to enable TDX on
demand
On Tue, 2023-07-04 at 18:58 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 02:24:56PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>
> > Waiting until userspace attempts to create the first TDX guest adds complexity
> > and limits what KVM can do to harden itself. Currently, all feature support in
> > KVM is effectively frozen at module load. E.g. most of the setup code is
> > contained in __init functions, many module-scoped variables are effectively
> > RO after init (though they can't be marked as such until we smush kvm-intel.ko
> > and kvm-amd.ko into kvm.ko, which is tentatively the long-term plan). All of
> > those patterns would get tossed aside if KVM waits until userspace attempts to
> > create the first guest.
>
> ....
>
> People got poked and the following was suggested:
>
> On boot do:
>
> TDH.SYS.INIT
> TDH.SYS.LP.INIT
> TDH.SYS.CONFIG
> TDH.SYS.KEY.CONFIG
>
> This should get TDX mostly sorted, but doesn't consume much resources.
> Then later, when starting the first TDX guest, do the whole
>
> TDH.TDMR.INIT
>
> dance to set up the PAMT array -- which is what gobbles up memory. From
> what I understand the TDH.TDMR.INIT thing is not one of those
> excessively long calls.
The TDH.TDMR.INIT itself has it's own latency requirement implemented in the TDX
module, thus it only initializes a small chunk (1M I guess) in each call.
Therefore we need a loop to do bunch of TDH.TDMR.INIT in order to initialize all
PAMT entries for all TDX-usable memory, which can be time-consuming.
Currently for simplicity we just do this inside the module initialization, but
can be optimized later when we have an agreed solution of how to optimize.
>
> If we have concerns about allocating the PAMT array, can't we use CMA
> for this? Allocate the whole thing at boot as CMA such that when not
> used for TDX it can be used for regular things like userspace and
> filecache pages?
The PAMT allocation itself isn't a concern I think. The concern is the
TDH.TDMR.INIT to initialize them.
Also, one practical problem to prevent us from pre-allocating PAMT is the PAMT
size to be allocated can only be determined after the TDH.SYS.INFO SEAMCALL,
which reports the "PAMT entry size" in the TDSYSINFO_STRUCT.
>
> Those TDH.SYS calls should be enough to ensure TDX is actually working,
> no?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists