linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 01/17] KVM: TDX: Add support for find pending IRQ in a protected local APIC

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Z61VHleTg9oV6xgY@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 10:12:46 +0800
From: Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC: Binbin Wu <binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com>, <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	<kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>, <kai.huang@...el.com>,
	<adrian.hunter@...el.com>, <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
	<xiaoyao.li@...el.com>, <tony.lindgren@...el.com>,
	<isaku.yamahata@...el.com>, <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/17] KVM: TDX: Add support for find pending IRQ in a
 protected local APIC

On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 08:04:49AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 12, 2025, Chao Gao wrote:
>> >diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/main.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/main.c
>> >index 7f1318c44040..2b1ea57a3a4e 100644
>> >--- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/main.c
>> >+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/main.c
>> >@@ -62,6 +62,8 @@ static __init int vt_hardware_setup(void)
>> > 		vt_x86_ops.set_external_spte = tdx_sept_set_private_spte;
>> > 		vt_x86_ops.free_external_spt = tdx_sept_free_private_spt;
>> > 		vt_x86_ops.remove_external_spte = tdx_sept_remove_private_spte;
>> 
>> Nit: I think it would be more consistent to set up .protected_apic_has_interrupt
>> if TDX is enabled (rather than clearing it if TDX is disabled).
>
>I think my preference would be to do the vt_op_tdx_only() thing[*], wire up all
>TDX hooks by default via vt_op_tdx_only(),

Yes, that makes sense. I am fine as long as the hooks are set up in the same way.

>and then nullify them if TDX support
>isn't enabled.  Or even just leave them set, e.g. based on the comment in
>vt_hardware_setup(), that can happen anyways.

Indeed. No need to nullify the hooks.

>
>https://lore.kernel.org/all/Z6v9yjWLNTU6X90d@google.com
>