linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/7] x86/virt/tdx: Mark memory cache state incoherent when making SEAMCALL

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: <aICFbbfK29Y21thJ@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 14:47:09 +0800
From: Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>
To: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
CC: "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "ashish.kalra@....com"
	<ashish.kalra@....com>, "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	"thomas.lendacky@....com" <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>, "dwmw@...zon.co.uk"
	<dwmw@...zon.co.uk>, "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	"seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>, "tglx@...utronix.de"
	<tglx@...utronix.de>, "kas@...nel.org" <kas@...nel.org>, "Chatre, Reinette"
	<reinette.chatre@...el.com>, "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
	"nik.borisov@...e.com" <nik.borisov@...e.com>, "hpa@...or.com"
	<hpa@...or.com>, "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"sagis@...gle.com" <sagis@...gle.com>, "Chen, Farrah"
	<farrah.chen@...el.com>, "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
	"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "Williams,
 Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/7] x86/virt/tdx: Mark memory cache state incoherent
 when making SEAMCALL

>> And tracking cache incoherent state at the per-CPU level seems to add
>> unnecessary complexity. It requires a new do_seamcall() wrapper, setting the
>> flag on every seamcall rather than just the first one (I'm not concerned about
>> performance; it just feels silly), and using preempt_disable()/enable(). In my
>> view, per-CPU tracking at most saves a WBINVD on a CPU that never runs
>> SEAMCALLs during KEXEC, which is quite marginal. Did I miss any other benefits?
>
>The cache state is percpu thus a percpu boolean is a natural fit.  Besides
>the benefit you mentioned, it fits better if there are other cases which
>could also lead to an incoherent state:
>
>https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/eb2e3b02-cf5e-4848-8f1d-9f3af8f9c96b@intel.com/
>
>Setting the boolean in the SEAMCALL common code makes the logic quite
>simple:
>
>  If you ever do a SEAMCALL, mark the cache in incoherent state.
>
>Please see Dave's comment here:
>
>https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/31e17bc8-2e9e-4e93-a912-3d54826e59d0@intel.com/
>
>The new code around the common SEAMCALL is pretty marginal comparing to
>the SEAMCALL itself (as you said), and it's pretty straightforward, i.e.,
>logically less error prone IMHO, so I am not seeing it silly.

Sure, let's follow Dave's suggestion.

For anyone else who has the same question, see the discussion here:

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/9a9380b55e1d01c650456e56be0949b531d88af5.camel@intel.com/
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6536c0cf614101eda89b3fe861f95ad0c1476cfd.camel@intel.com/

Both options, per-CPU variable and global variable, were evaluated, and the
agreed approach is to use the per-CPU variable. Apologize for the noise.