[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aPnbIDxGlcAyI9vy@yzhao56-desk.sh.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2025 15:37:04 +0800
From: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
Tianrui Zhao <zhaotianrui@...ngson.cn>, Bibo Mao <maobibo@...ngson.cn>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>, Madhavan Srinivasan
<maddy@...ux.ibm.com>, Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>, Paul Walmsley
<pjw@...nel.org>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, Albert Ou
<aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>, Claudio Imbrenda
<imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, "Kirill A.
Shutemov" <kas@...nel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <loongarch@...ts.linux.dev>,
<linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>, <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
<kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
<x86@...nel.org>, <linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>, Kai Huang
<kai.huang@...el.com>, Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>, Vishal Annapurve
<vannapurve@...gle.com>, Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
Ackerley Tng <ackerleytng@...gle.com>, Binbin Wu <binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 19/25] KVM: TDX: Assert that mmu_lock is held for
write when removing S-EPT entries
On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 05:32:37PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Unconditionally assert that mmu_lock is held for write when removing S-EPT
> entries, not just when removing S-EPT entries triggers certain conditions,
> e.g. needs to do TDH_MEM_TRACK or kick vCPUs out of the guest.
> Conditionally asserting implies that it's safe to hold mmu_lock for read
> when those paths aren't hit, which is simply not true, as KVM doesn't
> support removing S-EPT entries under read-lock.
>
> Only two paths lead to remove_external_spte(), and both paths asserts that
> mmu_lock is held for write (tdp_mmu_set_spte() via lockdep, and
> handle_removed_pt() via KVM_BUG_ON()).
>
> Deliberately leave lockdep assertions in the "no vCPUs" helpers to document
> that wait_for_sept_zap is guarded by holding mmu_lock for write.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c
> index e517ad3d5f4f..f6782b0ffa98 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c
> @@ -1711,8 +1711,6 @@ static void tdx_track(struct kvm *kvm)
> if (unlikely(kvm_tdx->state != TD_STATE_RUNNABLE))
> return;
>
> - lockdep_assert_held_write(&kvm->mmu_lock);
Could we also deliberately leave lockdep assertion for tdx_track()?
This is because if we allow removing S-EPT entries while holding mmu_lock for
read in future, tdx_track() needs to be protected by a separate spinlock to
ensure serialization of tdh_mem_track() and vCPUs kick-off (kicking off vCPUs
must follow each tdh_mem_track() to unblock the next tdh_mem_track()).
> err = tdh_mem_track(&kvm_tdx->td);
> if (unlikely(tdx_operand_busy(err))) {
> /* After no vCPUs enter, the second retry is expected to succeed */
> @@ -1758,6 +1756,8 @@ static void tdx_sept_remove_private_spte(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t gfn,
> gpa_t gpa = gfn_to_gpa(gfn);
> u64 err, entry, level_state;
>
> + lockdep_assert_held_write(&kvm->mmu_lock);
> +
> /*
> * HKID is released after all private pages have been removed, and set
> * before any might be populated. Warn if zapping is attempted when
> --
> 2.51.0.858.gf9c4a03a3a-goog
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists