From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f202.google.com (mail-pl1-f202.google.com [209.85.214.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C1FC81F for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2024 00:45:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.202 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714005922; cv=none; b=HMOk6I0ZDJ+62yiagKaaAY99SlMPQeUQyLQeJ85vdwUlE1nr8qmsK/8XoB+Ye5fFFs9I48L/4puQolvPArqPpF/CgUuKcmiVi0+JYmbflj6rqeJuFXhnuWph8lokRrVVtp+p1PpyOytBBXAhYKDGC5i7gs/4XguBSt7J+ZnW7K4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714005922; c=relaxed/simple; bh=C9Y7sI7S2lG7PgZ43yy72fujrqM9J0v4uwf6k/xCgvE=; h=Date:In-Reply-To:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=UI+N5heHiwx7ix3CWu0MzLLx3BdXRqIA6TVvrUqUL2BCn6M0WaRXbBZllFPF50JRrUZMttzJ2obgs0Zigo2EDAtQH0bqJEJe5BZWVbWov88HabSWlnzJYpM5obVfWTETU0C83peGLjiH8QJv/nB+rlK1lVCRo76NQABVKjHDob0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flex--seanjc.bounces.google.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b=pnBOa8Hk; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.202 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flex--seanjc.bounces.google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="pnBOa8Hk" Received: by mail-pl1-f202.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1e91766a8c6so4012375ad.3 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2024 17:45:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20230601; t=1714005920; x=1714610720; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ehGLjycYzRvV+RegBC+30jOD4jldKpLBzIes+g3Te5M=; b=pnBOa8HkR7a4mkmP50aCwSfpKIPU+FdpiJJblUV5hwiKAQH4ctrESEHh92BnFNaoSJ O0+wmX55wbsLNDJAXaIiV8ZztVmxY7bN5fozNn8IaBKvFHL4RcVnSzWRC+j1yeqHeB+r KZ8V2FbxYWDhrZvEoahar9EcCJBe82hXJ/bwQnwjg1hHCFHu6yF0k8WUc14Ur9xCqm0n s6j4bWEy3+4paaYgE2gToY1H10YXE6gTkC4v1iq9WR8SjCCmRCCDAo5cO+OXHrAxgX3F KmK4/YEtfLanvXuCU0beDPLGdVzKYAEMgs7dEDrdoYNvX/fzZxkN0Rurms5PiXSxoiKv bDQQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1714005920; x=1714610720; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ehGLjycYzRvV+RegBC+30jOD4jldKpLBzIes+g3Te5M=; b=aBEL+UdgKgneZmo6BFXy/0bH9YWNdZ3P+QtO9EQNAZ0qWCdrG/fav3+R7OvfOdPY/x +qotXJqvY25Md66XjYp3NoaP+4GWQMGdHbFqcgNTBI0uiANcBiT8Ag84++tmCox14fJf NEiBycid90SNODYbHQGPpthRzrBfT0RaYTuJ11UXW31fftt6yD9l8YeKVH4iZ7TVEvF/ 6P63J4FDYCnXTmQidVGzgiEJxT30GYtgO7ZZ7qp10xrYDgxVA+B5O//gm4cFIXwjKSB8 5jHOIhXKsb+2lNLubDKigvYiqCO4OBGCeDd/9Dpovq2YlnkBb2pZU8KegqvKI1Wa+5rz 93ww== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUuK0OaYTF7HZ9ar6MGFYvxqBLwb4FooIm6kc+EOOJ0NVGB0xNDHd9rQD5V4qYcoa2l2/DT4+W7YphqO/oyMSY7RsKHukQSO+2H1jFa X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Ywa3japEi+RxlJH9Z8luPteZDZo/InCb8tlzM6+4ZQjtZ8yapey OruH8q0CIXOlkJeL00aelAuYHGpCnYN97sk7tZ0+/0poTJSMjZaJqcO3MU7RtALDrs2skmfhv9S 91g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFR9HYBLarlt9ZsOvhUbV8OSiFHhgh7AV7IIXgugq1S0Quy5L1i73/i89wy47ffAjGpD3+fDEtcXsg= X-Received: from zagreus.c.googlers.com ([fda3:e722:ac3:cc00:7f:e700:c0a8:5c37]) (user=seanjc job=sendgmr) by 2002:a17:903:244e:b0:1e3:e6cb:a06e with SMTP id l14-20020a170903244e00b001e3e6cba06emr344607pls.5.1714005919640; Wed, 24 Apr 2024 17:45:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 17:45:18 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20240421180122.1650812-17-michael.roth@amd.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 References: <20240421180122.1650812-1-michael.roth@amd.com> <20240421180122.1650812-17-michael.roth@amd.com> Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 16/22] KVM: x86: Implement gmem hook for determining max NPT mapping level From: Sean Christopherson To: Michael Roth Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, jroedel@suse.de, thomas.lendacky@amd.com, hpa@zytor.com, ardb@kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, vkuznets@redhat.com, jmattson@google.com, luto@kernel.org, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, slp@redhat.com, pgonda@google.com, peterz@infradead.org, srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com, rientjes@google.com, dovmurik@linux.ibm.com, tobin@ibm.com, bp@alien8.de, vbabka@suse.cz, kirill@shutemov.name, ak@linux.intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com, sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com, alpergun@google.com, jarkko@kernel.org, ashish.kalra@amd.com, nikunj.dadhania@amd.com, pankaj.gupta@amd.com, liam.merwick@oracle.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Sun, Apr 21, 2024, Michael Roth wrote: > --- > arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c | 1 + > arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.h | 7 +++++++ > 3 files changed, 40 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c > index ff9b8c68ae56..243369e302f4 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c > @@ -4528,3 +4528,35 @@ void sev_gmem_invalidate(kvm_pfn_t start, kvm_pfn_t end) > cond_resched(); > } > } > + > +/* > + * Re-check whether an #NPF for a private/gmem page can still be serviced, and > + * adjust maximum mapping level if needed. > + */ > +int sev_gmem_validate_fault(struct kvm *kvm, kvm_pfn_t pfn, gfn_t gfn, bool is_private, This is a misleading name. The primary purpose is not to validate the fault, the primary purpose is to get the max mapping level. The fact that this can fail should not dictate the name. I also think we should skip the call if the max level is already PG_LEVEL_4K. Something _could_ race and invalidate the RMP, but that's _exactly_ why KVM guards the page fault path with mmu_invalidate_seq. Actually, is returning an error in this case even correct? Me thinks no. If something invalidates the RMP between kvm_gmem_get_pfn() and getting the mapping level, then KVM should retry, which mmu_invalidate_seq handles. Returning -EINVAL and killing the VM is wrong. And IMO, "gmem" shouldn't be in the name, this is not a hook from guest_memfd, it's a hook for mapping private memory. And as someone called out somwhere else, the "private" parameters is pointless. And for that matter, so is the gfn. And even _if_ we want to return an error, we could even overload the return code to handle this, e.g. in the caller: r = static_call(kvm_x86_max_private_mapping_level)(vcpu->kvm, fault->pfn); if (r < 0) { kvm_release_pfn_clean(fault->pfn); return r; } fault->max_level = min(fault->max_level, r); but what I think we want is: --- int sev_snp_private_max_mapping_level(struct kvm *kvm, kvm_pfn_t pfn) { int level, rc; bool assigned; if (!sev_snp_guest(kvm)) return 0; rc = snp_lookup_rmpentry(pfn, &assigned, &level); if (rc || !assigned) return PG_LEVEL_4K; return level; } static u8 kvm_max_private_mapping_level(struct kvm *kvm, kvm_pfn_t pfn, u8 max_level, int gmem_order) { if (max_level == PG_LEVEL_4K) return PG_LEVEL_4K; max_level = min(kvm_max_level_for_order(gmem_order),max_level); if (max_level == PG_LEVEL_4K) return PG_LEVEL_4K; return min(max_level, static_call(kvm_x86_private_max_mapping_level)(kvm, pfn); } static int kvm_faultin_pfn_private(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_page_fault *fault) { struct kvm *kvm = vcpu->kvm; int max_order, r; if (!kvm_slot_can_be_private(fault->slot)) { kvm_mmu_prepare_memory_fault_exit(vcpu, fault); return -EFAULT; } r = kvm_gmem_get_pfn(kvm, fault->slot, fault->gfn, &fault->pfn, &max_order); if (r) { kvm_mmu_prepare_memory_fault_exit(vcpu, fault); return r; } fault->map_writable = !(fault->slot->flags & KVM_MEM_READONLY); fault->max_level = kvm_max_private_mapping_level(kvm, fault->pfn, fault->max_level, order); return RET_PF_CONTINUE; } --- Side topic, the KVM_MEM_READONLY check is unnecessary, KVM doesn't allow RO memslots to coincide with guest_memfd. I missed that in commit e563592224e0 ("KVM: Make KVM_MEM_GUEST_MEMFD mutually exclusive with KVM_MEM_READONLY").