Re: [PATCH v10 0/9] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM

[Chao Peng]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 01:27:50AM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 03:25:08PM +0000,
> > Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2023, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 12:37:59AM +0000,
> > > > Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Fri, Dec 02, 2022, Chao Peng wrote:
> > > > > > This patch series implements KVM guest private memory for 
> > > > > > confidential
> > > > > > computing scenarios like Intel TDX[1]. If a TDX host accesses
> > > > > > TDX-protected guest memory, machine check can happen which can 
> > > > > > further
> > > > > > crash the running host system, this is terrible for multi-tenant
> > > > > > configurations. The host accesses include those from KVM userspace 
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > QEMU. This series addresses KVM userspace induced crash by 
> > > > > > introducing
> > > > > > new mm and KVM interfaces so KVM userspace can still manage guest 
> > > > > > memory
> > > > > > via a fd-based approach, but it can never access the guest memory
> > > > > > content.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The patch series touches both core mm and KVM code. I appreciate
> > > > > > Andrew/Hugh and Paolo/Sean can review and pick these patches. Any 
> > > > > > other
> > > > > > reviews are always welcome.
> > > > > >   - 01: mm change, target for mm tree
> > > > > >   - 02-09: KVM change, target for KVM tree
> > > > > 
> > > > > A version with all of my feedback, plus reworked versions of Vishal's 
> > > > > selftest,
> > > > > is available here:
> > > > > 
> > > > >   git@github.com:sean-jc/linux.git x86/upm_base_support
> > > > > 
> > > > > It compiles and passes the selftest, but it's otherwise barely 
> > > > > tested.  There are
> > > > > a few todos (2 I think?) and many of the commits need changelogs, 
> > > > > i.e. it's still
> > > > > a WIP.
> > > > > 
> > > > > As for next steps, can you (handwaving all of the TDX folks) take a 
> > > > > look at what
> > > > > I pushed and see if there's anything horrifically broken, and that it 
> > > > > still works
> > > > > for TDX?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Fuad (and pKVM folks) same ask for you with respect to pKVM.  
> > > > > Absolutely no rush
> > > > > (and I mean that).
> > > > > 
> > > > > On my side, the two things on my mind are (a) tests and (b) 
> > > > > downstream dependencies
> > > > > (SEV and TDX).  For tests, I want to build a lists of tests that are 
> > > > > required for
> > > > > merging so that the criteria for merging are clear, and so that if 
> > > > > the list is large
> > > > > (haven't thought much yet), the work of writing and running tests can 
> > > > > be distributed.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Regarding downstream dependencies, before this lands, I want to pull 
> > > > > in all the
> > > > > TDX and SNP series and see how everything fits together.  
> > > > > Specifically, I want to
> > > > > make sure that we don't end up with a uAPI that necessitates ugly 
> > > > > code, and that we
> > > > > don't miss an opportunity to make things simpler.  The patches in the 
> > > > > SNP series to
> > > > > add "legacy" SEV support for UPM in particular made me slightly 
> > > > > rethink some minor
> > > > > details.  Nothing remotely major, but something that needs attention 
> > > > > since it'll
> > > > > be uAPI.
> > > > 
> > > > Although I'm still debuging with TDX KVM, I needed the following.
> > > > kvm_faultin_pfn() is called without mmu_lock held.  the race to change
> > > > private/shared is handled by mmu_seq.  Maybe dedicated function only for
> > > > kvm_faultin_pfn().
> > > 
> > > Gah, you're not on the other thread where this was discussed[*].  Simply 
> > > deleting
> > > the lockdep assertion is safe, for guest types that rely on the 
> > > attributes to
> > > define shared vs. private, KVM rechecks the attributes under the 
> > > protection of
> > > mmu_seq.
> > > 
> > > I'll get a fixed version pushed out today.
> > > 
> > > [*] https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y8gpl+LwSuSgBFks@google.com
> > 
> > Now I have tdx kvm working. I've uploaded at the followings.
> > It's rebased to v6.2-rc3.
> >         git@github.com:yamahata/linux.git tdx/upm
> >         git@github.com:yamahata/qemu.git tdx/upm
> 
> And I finally got a working, building version updated and pushed out (again 
> to):
> 
>   git@github.com:sean-jc/linux.git x86/upm_base_support
> 
> Took longer than expected to get the memslot restrictions sussed out.  I'm 
> done
> working on the code for now, my plan is to come back to it+TDX+SNP in 2-3 
> weeks
> to resolves any remaining todos (that no one else tackles) and to do the whole
> "merge the world" excersise.

Hi Sean,

In case you started working on the code again, I have a branch [1]
originally planned as v11 candidate which I believe I addressed all the
discussions we had for v10 except the very latest one [2] and integrated
all the newly added selftests from Ackerley and myself. The branch was
based on your original upm_base_support and then rebased to your
kvm-x86/mmu head. Feel free to take anything you think useful( most of
them are trivial things but also some fixes for bugs).

[1] https://github.com/chao-p/linux/commits/privmem-v11.6
[2] 
20230413160405.h6ov2yl6l3i7mvsj@box.shutemov.name/">https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230413160405.h6ov2yl6l3i7mvsj@box.shutemov.name/

Chao
> 
> > kvm_mmu_do_page_fault() needs the following change.
> > kvm_mem_is_private() queries mem_attr_array.  kvm_faultin_pfn() also uses
> > kvm_mem_is_private(). So the shared-private check in kvm_faultin_pfn() 
> > doesn't
> > make sense. This change would belong to TDX KVM patches, though.
> 
> Yeah, SNP needs similar treatment.  Sorting that out is high up on the todo 
> list.