linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 02/24] x86/virt/tdx: Add SEAMCALL wrapper tdh_mem_page

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: <baf6df2cc63d8e897455168c1bf07180fc9c1db8.camel@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 11:10:05 +0000
From: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
To: "Zhao, Yan Y" <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
CC: "Du, Fan" <fan.du@...el.com>, "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Li, Xiaoyao" <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>, "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	"thomas.lendacky@....com" <thomas.lendacky@....com>, "tabba@...gle.com"
	<tabba@...gle.com>, "vbabka@...e.cz" <vbabka@...e.cz>, "david@...nel.org"
	<david@...nel.org>, "michael.roth@....com" <michael.roth@....com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>, "pbonzini@...hat.com"
	<pbonzini@...hat.com>, "binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com"
	<binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com>, "Weiny, Ira" <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
	"kas@...nel.org" <kas@...nel.org>, "nik.borisov@...e.com"
	<nik.borisov@...e.com>, "ackerleytng@...gle.com" <ackerleytng@...gle.com>,
	"Peng, Chao P" <chao.p.peng@...el.com>, "francescolavra.fl@...il.com"
	<francescolavra.fl@...il.com>, "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
	"sagis@...gle.com" <sagis@...gle.com>, "Gao, Chao" <chao.gao@...el.com>,
	"Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>, "Miao, Jun"
	<jun.miao@...el.com>, "Annapurve, Vishal" <vannapurve@...gle.com>,
	"jgross@...e.com" <jgross@...e.com>, "pgonda@...gle.com" <pgonda@...gle.com>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/24] x86/virt/tdx: Add SEAMCALL wrapper
 tdh_mem_page_demote()

On Fri, 2026-01-16 at 16:35 +0800, Yan Zhao wrote:
> Hi Kai,
> Thanks for reviewing!
> 
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 09:00:29AM +0800, Huang, Kai wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > Enable tdh_mem_page_demote() only on TDX modules that support feature
> > > TDX_FEATURES0.ENHANCE_DEMOTE_INTERRUPTIBILITY, which does not return error
> > > TDX_INTERRUPTED_RESTARTABLE on basic TDX (i.e., without TD partition) [2].
> > > 
> > > This is because error TDX_INTERRUPTED_RESTARTABLE is difficult to handle.
> > > The TDX module provides no guaranteed maximum retry count to ensure forward
> > > progress of the demotion. Interrupt storms could then result in a DoS if
> > > host simply retries endlessly for TDX_INTERRUPTED_RESTARTABLE. Disabling
> > > interrupts before invoking the SEAMCALL also doesn't work because NMIs can
> > > also trigger TDX_INTERRUPTED_RESTARTABLE. Therefore, the tradeoff for basic
> > > TDX is to disable the TDX_INTERRUPTED_RESTARTABLE error given the
> > > reasonable execution time for demotion. [1]
> > > 
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > v3:
> > > - Use a var name that clearly tell that the page is used as a page table
> > >   page. (Binbin).
> > > - Check if TDX module supports feature ENHANCE_DEMOTE_INTERRUPTIBILITY.
> > >   (Kai).
> > > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > +u64 tdh_mem_page_demote(struct tdx_td *td, u64 gpa, int level, struct page *new_sept_page,
> > > +			u64 *ext_err1, u64 *ext_err2)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct tdx_module_args args = {
> > > +		.rcx = gpa | level,
> > > +		.rdx = tdx_tdr_pa(td),
> > > +		.r8 = page_to_phys(new_sept_page),
> > > +	};
> > > +	u64 ret;
> > > +
> > > +	if (!tdx_supports_demote_nointerrupt(&tdx_sysinfo))
> > > +		return TDX_SW_ERROR;
> > > 
> > 
> > For the record, while I replied my suggestion [*] to this patch in v2, it
> > was basically because the discussion was already in that patch -- I didn't
> > mean to do this check inside tdh_mem_page_demote(), but do this check in
> > KVM page fault patch and return 4K as maximum mapping level.
> > 
> > The precise words were:
> > 
> >   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?
> Right. I followed it in the last patch (patch 24).
> 
> > Looking at this series, this is eventually done in your last patch.  But I
> > don't quite understand what's the additional value of doing such check and
> > return TDX_SW_ERROR in this SEAMCALL wrapper.
> > 
> > Currently in this series, it doesn't matter whether this wrapper returns
> > TDX_SW_ERROR or the real TDX_INTERRUPTED_RESTARTABLE -- KVM terminates the
> > TD anyway (see your patch 8) because this is unexpected as checked in your
> > last patch.
> > 
> > IMHO we should get rid of this check in this low level wrapper.
> You are right, the wrapper shouldn't hit this error after the last patch.
> 
> However, I found it's better to introduce the feature bit
> TDX_FEATURES0_ENHANCE_DEMOTE_INTERRUPTIBILITY and the helper
> tdx_supports_demote_nointerrupt() together with the demote SEAMCALL wrapper.
> This way, people can understand how the TDX_INTERRUPTED_RESTARTABLE error is
> handled for this SEAMCALL. 
> 

So the "handling" here is basically making DEMOTE SEAMCALL unavailable
when DEMOTE is interruptible at low SEAMCALL wrapper level.

I guess you can argue this has some value since it tells users "don't even
try to call me when I am interruptible because I am not available".  

However, IMHO this also implies the benefit is mostly for the case where
the user wants to use this wrapper to tell whether DEMOTE is available. 
E.g.,

	err = tdh_mem_page_demote(...);
	if (err == TDX_SW_ERROR)
		enable_tdx_hugepage = false;

But in this series you are using tdx_supports_demote_nointerrupt() for
this purpose, which is better IMHO.

So maybe there's a *theoretical* value to have the check here, but I don't
see any *real* value.

But I don't have strong opinion either -- I guess I just don't like making
these low level SEAMCALL wrappers more complicated than what the SEAMCALL
does -- and it's up to you to decide. :-)

> 
> What do you think about changing it to a WARN_ON_ONCE()? i.e.,
> WARN_ON_ONCE(!tdx_supports_demote_nointerrupt(&tdx_sysinfo));

What's your intention?

W/o the WARN(), the caller _can_ call this wrapper (i.e., not a kernel
bug) but it always get a SW-defined error.  Again, maybe it has value for
the case where the caller wants to use this to tell whether DEMOTE is
available.

With the WARN(), it's a kernel bug to call the wrapper, and the caller
needs to use other way (i.e., tdx_supports_demote_nointerrupt()) to tell
whether DEMOTE is available.

So if you want the check, probably WARN() is a better idea since I suppose
we always want users to use tdx_supports_demote_nointerrupt() to know
whether DEMOTE can be done, and the WARN() is just to catch bug.