Message-ID: <20240516194209.GL168153@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 12:42:09 -0700
From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>
To: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
Cc: "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	"seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
	"Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>,
	"isaku.yamahata@...il.com" <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>,
	"sagis@...gle.com" <sagis@...gle.com>,
	"Aktas, Erdem" <erdemaktas@...gle.com>,
	"dmatlack@...gle.com" <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
	"Zhao, Yan Y" <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	isaku.yamahata@...el.com, isaku.yamahata@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/16] KVM: x86/tdp_mmu: Support TDX private mapping for
 TDP MMU

On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 04:36:48PM +0000,
"Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 2024-05-16 at 13:04 +0000, Huang, Kai wrote:
> > On Thu, 2024-05-16 at 02:57 +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2024-05-16 at 14:07 +1200, Huang, Kai wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > I meant it seems we should just strip shared bit away from the GPA in 
> > > > handle_ept_violation() and pass it as 'cr2_or_gpa' here, so fault->addr 
> > > > won't have the shared bit.
> > > > 
> > > > Do you see any problem of doing so?
> > > 
> > > We would need to add it back in "raw_gfn" in kvm_tdp_mmu_map().
> > 
> > I don't see any big difference?
> > 
> > Now in this patch the raw_gfn is directly from fault->addr:
> > 
> >         raw_gfn = gpa_to_gfn(fault->addr);
> > 
> >         tdp_mmu_for_each_pte(iter, mmu, is_private, raw_gfn, raw_gfn+1) {
> >                 ...
> >         }
> > 
> > But there's nothing wrong to get the raw_gfn from the fault->gfn.  In
> > fact, the zapping code just does this:
> > 
> >         /*
> >          * start and end doesn't have GFN shared bit.  This function zaps
> >          * a region including alias.  Adjust shared bit of [start, end) if
> >          * the root is shared.
> >          */
> >         start = kvm_gfn_for_root(kvm, root, start);
> >         end = kvm_gfn_for_root(kvm, root, end);
> > 
> > So there's nothing wrong to just do the same thing in both functions.
> > 
> > The point is fault->gfn has shared bit stripped away at the beginning, and
> > AFAICT there's no useful reason to keep shared bit in fault->addr.  The
> > entire @fault is a temporary structure on the stack during fault handling
> > anyway.
> 
> I would like to avoid code churn at this point if there is not a real clear
> benefit.
> 
> One small benefit of keeping the shared bit in the fault->addr is that it is
> sort of consistent with how that field is used in other scenarios in KVM. In
> shadow paging it's not even the GPA. So it is simply the "fault address" and has
> to be interpreted in different ways in the fault handler. For TDX the fault
> address *does* include the shared bit. And the EPT needs to be faulted in at
> that address.
> 
> If we strip the shared bit when setting fault->addr we have to reconstruct it
> when we do the actual shared mapping. There is no way around that. Which helper
> does it, isn't important I think. Doing the reconstruction inside
> tdp_mmu_for_each_pte() could be neat, except that it doesn't know about the
> shared bit position.
> 
> The zapping code's use of kvm_gfn_for_root() is different because the gfn comes
> without the shared bit. It's not stripped and then added back. Those are
> operations that target GFNs really.
> 
> I think the real problem is that we are gleaning whether the fault is to private
> or shared memory from different things. Sometimes from fault->is_private,
> sometimes the presence of the shared bits, and sometimes the role bit. I think
> this is confusing, doubly so because we are using some of these things to infer
> unrelated things (mirrored vs private).

It's confusing we don't check it in uniform way.


> My guess is that you have noticed this and somehow zeroed in on the shared_mask.
> I think we should straighten out the mirrored/private semantics and see what the
> results look like. How does that sound to you?

I had closer look of the related code.  I think we can (mostly) uniformly use
gpa/gfn without shared mask.  Here is the proposal.  We need a real patch to see
how the outcome looks like anyway.  I think this is like what Kai is thinking
about.


- rename role.is_private => role.is_mirrored_pt

- sp->gfn: gfn without shared bit.

- fault->address: without gfn_shared_mask
  Actually it doesn't matter much.  We can use gpa with gfn_shared_mask.

- Update struct tdp_iter
  struct tdp_iter
    gfn: gfn without shared bit

    /* Add new members */

    /* Indicates which PT to walk. */
    bool mirrored_pt;

    // This is used tdp_iter_refresh_sptep()
    // shared gfn_mask if mirrored_pt
    // 0 if !mirrored_pt
    gfn_shared_mask

- Pass mirrored_pt and gfn_shared_mask to
  tdp_iter_start(..., mirrored_pt, gfn_shared_mask)

  and update tdp_iter_refresh_sptep()
  static void tdp_iter_refresh_sptep(struct tdp_iter *iter)
        ...
        iter->sptep = iter->pt_path[iter->level - 1] +
                SPTE_INDEX((iter->gfn << PAGE_SHIFT) | iter->gfn_shared_mask, iter->level);

  Change for_each_tdp_mte_min_level() accordingly.
  Also the iteretor to call this.
   
  #define for_each_tdp_pte_min_level(kvm, iter, root, min_level, start, end)      \
          for (tdp_iter_start(&iter, root, min_level, start,                      \
               mirrored_root, mirrored_root ? kvm_gfn_shared_mask(kvm) : 0);      \
               iter.valid && iter.gfn < kvm_gfn_for_root(kvm, root, end);         \
               tdp_iter_next(&iter))

- trace point: update to include mirroredd_pt. Or Leave it as is for now.

- pr_err() that log gfn in handle_changed_spte()
  Update to include mirrored_pt. Or Leave it as is for now.

- Update spte handler (handle_changed_spte(), handle_removed_pt()...),
  use iter->mirror_pt or pass down mirror_pt.

-- 
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists