From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-yw1-f202.google.com (mail-yw1-f202.google.com [209.85.128.202]) (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 C46DB15666D for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2024 22:13:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.202 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714083224; cv=none; b=oj+B51IgvM8F/Zk8OmEmbkZuESA1G0hxUzyikdyILuIrlrlSWu9J5jbg7nPWJ12C7roqqUuu1lDkPGU2mCUJm2dN+YArDp7cZLo6WVmK7Al2eE4LDi34ObH62cpEhyJqjJqNTg1ES53JwsTsBMoHEiSWVVkhbmtbaB4aPb7rQiI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714083224; c=relaxed/simple; bh=cbz4VgLAc5b9NzezYzcfU9eqcXCaDYCWqPxj/avxGRE=; h=Date:In-Reply-To:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=R/vtnEzAOTgWm3TEvremrJIFRilKLP4uKDwUjdt+zO/gCrM3EslNXRG1y3SmT/t604FM84fmX6rG1wcOWy1vxI2z/NN8S0qvkwji7SyVHUlMdjIxUIy9sKUpQj3BVgeVg+Re3SC/Z38zXIFuLeBYUvI8mHPALhqyAPQKgiysWck= 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=Wa+ABr0d; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.202 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="Wa+ABr0d" Received: by mail-yw1-f202.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-61b330409b7so28672977b3.0 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:13:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20230601; t=1714083222; x=1714688022; 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=VlD1vrF3NmiYyeEP9cJyDUHce3FgvPJuIrigqLvvs0A=; b=Wa+ABr0dRKy5uBBoTbIO69ZD9ZdW/I5+Br+SBV5Qwd1TDelcfwrliyUbeUIyVtkWTH RkvVjHudYYhXoUBXHgc5iXYgGUff8E/uER8cBzysOn5/qZvZ2YxV3mCiNTu48BhzieYO dT1ETzNlNvJfw66ykWkYpD6pRMuDDMKbglKy1AveR4oLEKdoU2jlBnBRmFFfxipkeexH Nu5C7FHKanQdO7/oRU8KoEs26sGphSffvt6mCAKYDBWSnn4f79YK0sHxEhRwtdtenYGP GWubh7jV6EpHPn/co0agZzK/acQgZgWNw2KqI4oEEUZuKK0JwJrhofUTTyuVir2QLRFx m7WQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1714083222; x=1714688022; 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=VlD1vrF3NmiYyeEP9cJyDUHce3FgvPJuIrigqLvvs0A=; b=aVTDXui3NnfZOcZyvtEZUXUsBTZh8hFcK8B273PgP104XkQW8iG8Xko89COQ0sgV2z FCn8QKofmhp4wT18bBWXPIFfn6wM7XyIjeO0FJQ3XsUP2xLiCS8oSYDAKBUK8W8Fj3DW 34cY+c0cuuNCd3ZWHsX6UD6rMkxYFPWH5S1OV9KYdOd47mmcywXklxuM/GRAGdtpXKFG pwx3GeyYCmgkfcvHWIEi7TX2zRR3SMI+Ela8RkWVnwDyDY6/ziVPXXQ2ftzJtllTRSuk F84kXDZniSnSeRwXcgPCZQ+wJuc9ABVOwlhewXZSvquC0XWCps4TZj4twJli5y1KF3rH SW/Q== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUlMwl3J8GeFJroD8j5y46btHXGDfvzcRQ4ub3rhOFGJaLRaatLjcw37VH3FcjghQ2lMI5C/rP1F+RgZJUTjaOozmdO2y9qwB1PnOow X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzP+c2juS+NztHl66KQqhy75xpI0ayDfDAOEWpC7ZIv6K8sJau6 vbHP1luam4zaXhtaaxuj4pLuXqzXIRILAmSsP78Ogbd82KqAC1Y47kh3OL0d/UI+FjEi7n+5H6S jew== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHzHjxcfIPYRO/0ZR+/PU18iR8U2AlUK3bDXYPmThs8oWF6MVloZCgQa8+8/V5cYRymgqjaTVn5F6o= X-Received: from zagreus.c.googlers.com ([fda3:e722:ac3:cc00:7f:e700:c0a8:5c37]) (user=seanjc job=sendgmr) by 2002:a81:a097:0:b0:61a:b41a:2ef5 with SMTP id x145-20020a81a097000000b0061ab41a2ef5mr194759ywg.10.1714083221862; Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:13:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:13:40 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20240425220008.boxnurujlxbx62pg@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> <20240421180122.1650812-10-michael.roth@amd.com> <20240425220008.boxnurujlxbx62pg@amd.com> Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 09/22] KVM: SEV: Add support to handle MSR based Page State Change VMGEXIT 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, Brijesh Singh Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Thu, Apr 25, 2024, Michael Roth wrote: > On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 01:59:48PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 21, 2024, Michael Roth wrote: > > > +static int snp_begin_psc_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 ghcb_msr) > > > +{ > > > + u64 gpa = gfn_to_gpa(GHCB_MSR_PSC_REQ_TO_GFN(ghcb_msr)); > > > + u8 op = GHCB_MSR_PSC_REQ_TO_OP(ghcb_msr); > > > + struct vcpu_svm *svm = to_svm(vcpu); > > > + > > > + if (op != SNP_PAGE_STATE_PRIVATE && op != SNP_PAGE_STATE_SHARED) { > > > + set_ghcb_msr(svm, GHCB_MSR_PSC_RESP_ERROR); > > > + return 1; /* resume guest */ > > > + } > > > + > > > + vcpu->run->exit_reason = KVM_EXIT_VMGEXIT; > > > + vcpu->run->vmgexit.type = KVM_USER_VMGEXIT_PSC_MSR; > > > + vcpu->run->vmgexit.psc_msr.gpa = gpa; > > > + vcpu->run->vmgexit.psc_msr.op = op; > > > > Argh, no. > > > > This is the same crud that TDX tried to push[*]. Use KVM's existing user exits, > > and extend as *needed*. There is no good reason page state change requests need > > *two* exit reasons. The *only* thing KVM supports right now is private<=>shared > > conversions, and that can be handled with either KVM_HC_MAP_GPA_RANGE or > > KVM_EXIT_MEMORY_FAULT. > > > > The non-MSR flavor can batch requests, but I'm willing to bet that the overwhelming > > majority of requests are contiguous, i.e. can be combined into a range by KVM, > > and that handling any outliers by performing multiple exits to userspace will > > provide sufficient performance. > > That does tend to be the case. We won't have as much granularity with > the per-entry error codes, but KVM_SET_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES would be > expected to be for the entire range anyway, and if that fails for > whatever reason then we KVM_BUG_ON() anyway. We do have to have handling > for cases where the entries aren't contiguous however, which would > involve multiple KVM_EXIT_HYPERCALLs until everything is satisfied. But > not a huge deal since it doesn't seem to be a common case. If it was less complex overall, I wouldn't be opposed to KVM marshalling everything into a buffer, but I suspect it will be simpler to just have KVM loop until the PSC request is complete. > KVM_HC_MAP_GPA_RANGE seems like a nice option because we'd also have the > flexibility to just issue that directly within a guest rather than > relying on SNP/TDX specific hcalls. I don't know if that approach is > practical for a real guest, but it could be useful for having re-usable > guest code in KVM selftests that "just works" for all variants of > SNP/TDX/sw-protected. (though we'd still want stuff that exercises > SNP/TDX->KVM_HC_MAP_GPA_RANGE translation). > > I think we'd there is some potential baggage there with the previous SEV > live migration use cases. There's some potential that existing guest kernels > will use it once it gets advertised and issue them alongside GHCB-based > page-state changes. It might make sense to use one of the reserved bits > to denote this flavor of KVM_HC_MAP_GPA_RANGE as being for > hardware/software-protected VMs and not interchangeable with calls that > were used for SEV live migration stuff. I don't think I follow, what exactly wouldn't be interchangeable, and why? > If this seems reasonable I'll give it a go and see what it looks like. > > > > > And the non-MSR version that comes in later patch is a complete mess. It kicks > > the PSC out to userspace without *any* validation. As I complained in the TDX > > thread, that will create an unmaintable ABI for KVM. > > > > KVM needs to have its own, well-defined ABI. Splitting functionality between > > KVM and userspace at seemingly random points is not maintainable. > > > > E.g. if/when KVM supports UNSMASH, upgrading to the KVM would arguably break > > userspace as PSC requests that previously exited would suddenly be handled by > > KVM. Maybe. It's impossible to review this because there's no KVM ABI, KVM is > > little more than a dumb pipe parroting information to userspace. > > It leans on the GHCB spec to avoid re-inventing structs/documentation > for things like Page State Change buffers, but do have some control > as we want over how much we farm out versus lock into the KVM ABI. For > instance the accompanying Documentation/ update mentions we only send a > subset of GHCB requests that need to be handled by userspace, so we > could handle SMASH/UNSMASH in KVM without breaking expectations (or if > SMASH/UNSMASH were intermixed with PSCs, documentation that only PSC > opcodes could be updated by userspace). > > But I'm certainly not arguing it wouldn't be better to have a > guest-agnostic alternative if we can reach an agreement on that, and > KVM_HC_MAP_GPA_RANGE seems like it could work. Yeah, I want to at least _try_ to achieve common ground, because the basic functionality of all this stuff is the exact same.