[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aRb0s2/t3NFg25FL@yzhao56-desk.sh.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2025 17:21:55 +0800
From: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
To: Binbin Wu <binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com>
CC: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>, "kvm@...r.kernel.org"
<kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "Li, Xiaoyao" <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>, "Du, Fan"
<fan.du@...el.com>, "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"david@...hat.com" <david@...hat.com>, "thomas.lendacky@....com"
<thomas.lendacky@....com>, "vbabka@...e.cz" <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"tabba@...gle.com" <tabba@...gle.com>, "michael.roth@....com"
<michael.roth@....com>, "seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>, "Weiny, Ira"
<ira.weiny@...el.com>, "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>, "Peng,
Chao P" <chao.p.peng@...el.com>, "ackerleytng@...gle.com"
<ackerleytng@...gle.com>, "kas@...nel.org" <kas@...nel.org>, "Yamahata,
Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Annapurve, Vishal" <vannapurve@...gle.com>,
"Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>, "Miao, Jun"
<jun.miao@...el.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "pgonda@...gle.com"
<pgonda@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 02/23] x86/virt/tdx: Add SEAMCALL wrapper
tdh_mem_page_demote()
On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 05:14:03PM +0800, Binbin Wu wrote:
>
>
> On 11/12/2025 4:06 PM, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 05:15:22PM +0800, Huang, Kai wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2025-09-01 at 17:08 +0800, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > > > > > Do not handle TDX_INTERRUPTED_RESTARTABLE because SEAMCALL
> > > > > > TDH_MEM_PAGE_DEMOTE does not check interrupts (including NMIs) for basic
> > > > > > TDX (with or without Dynamic PAMT).
> > > > > The cover letter mentions that there is a new TDX module in planning, which
> > > > > disables the interrupt checking. I guess TDX module would need to have a
> > > > > interface to report the change, KVM then decides to enable huge page support or
> > > > > not for TDs?
> > > > Yes. But I guess detecting TDX module version or if it supports certain feature
> > > > is a generic problem. e.g., certain versions of TDX module have bugs in
> > > > zero-step mitigation and may block vCPU entering.
> > > >
> > > > So, maybe it deserves a separate series?
> > > Looking at the spec (TDX module ABI spec 348551-007US), is it enumerated via
> > > TDX_FEATURES0.ENHANCED_DEMOTE_INTERRUPTIBILITY?
> > Yes. I checked the unreleased TDX module code that enumerates this bit (starting
> > from version TDX_1.5.28.00.972). TDH.MEM.PAGE.DEMOTE will not return
> > TDX_INTERRUPTED_RESTARTABLE for L1 VMs.
>
> According to the content pasted by Kai below, it just says there will be no
> TDX_INTERRUPTED_RESTARTABLE for TDH.MEM.PAGE.DEMOTE if no L2 VMs.
>
> KVM doesn't support TD partition yet, just for clarification, what if the
> demotion is for L1 VM, but there are L2 VMs configured?
Right. The description pasted by Kai is more accurate:
"There will be no TDX_INTERRUPTED_RESTARTABLE for TDH.MEM.PAGE.DEMOTE if no L2
VMs".
>From the code, DEMOTE may return TDX_INTERRUPTED_RESTARTABLE if
tdcs_ptr->management_fields.num_l2_vms is non-zero.
Thanks for flagging this.
> > > 5.4.25.3.9.
> > >
> > > Interruptibility
> > >
> > > If the TD is not partitioned (i.e., it has been configured with no L2
> > > VMs), and the TDX Module enumerates
> > > TDX_FEATURES0.ENHANCED_DEMOTE_INTERRUPTIBILITY as 1, TDH.MEM.PAGE.DEMOTE
> > > is not interruptible.
> > >
> > > So if the decision is to not use 2M page when TDH_MEM_PAGE_DEMOTE can return
> > > TDX_INTERRUPTED_RESTARTABLE, maybe we can just check this enumeration in
> > > fault handler and always make mapping level as 4K?
> > Thanks for this info! I think this is a very good idea and the right direction.
> > If no objection, I'll update the code in this way.
> >
> >
> >
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists