On Mon, Aug 23, 2021, Wei Huang wrote: > On 08/23 12:20, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > This hack makes it work again for me (I don't yet use TDP mmu). > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c > > index caa3f9aee7d1..c25e0d40a620 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c > > @@ -3562,7 +3562,7 @@ static int mmu_alloc_special_roots(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > mmu->shadow_root_level < PT64_ROOT_4LEVEL) > > return 0; > > > > - if (mmu->pae_root && mmu->pml4_root && mmu->pml5_root) Maxim, I assume you hit this WARN and bail? if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!tdp_enabled || mmu->pae_root || mmu->pml4_root || mmu->pml5_root)) return -EIO; Because as the comment states, KVM expects all the special roots to be allocated together. The 5-level paging supported breaks that assumption because pml5_root will be allocated iff the host is using 5-level paging. if (mmu->shadow_root_level > PT64_ROOT_4LEVEL) { pml5_root = (void *)get_zeroed_page(GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT); if (!pml5_root) goto err_pml5; } I think this is the least awful fix, I'll test and send a proper patch later today. diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c index 4853c033e6ce..93b2ed422b48 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c @@ -3548,6 +3548,7 @@ static int mmu_alloc_shadow_roots(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) static int mmu_alloc_special_roots(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) { struct kvm_mmu *mmu = vcpu->arch.mmu; + bool need_pml5 = mmu->shadow_root_level > PT64_ROOT_4LEVEL; u64 *pml5_root = NULL; u64 *pml4_root = NULL; u64 *pae_root; @@ -3562,7 +3563,14 @@ static int mmu_alloc_special_roots(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) mmu->shadow_root_level < PT64_ROOT_4LEVEL) return 0; - if (mmu->pae_root && mmu->pml4_root && mmu->pml5_root) + /* + * NPT, the only paging mode that uses this horror, uses a fixed number + * of levels for the shadow page tables, e.g. all MMUs are 4-level or + * all MMus are 5-level. Thus, this can safely require that pml5_root + * is allocated if the other roots are valid and pml5 is needed, as any + * prior MMU would also have required pml5. + */ + if (mmu->pae_root && mmu->pml4_root && (!need_pml5 || mmu->pml5_root)) return 0; /* @@ -3570,7 +3578,7 @@ static int mmu_alloc_special_roots(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) * bail if KVM ends up in a state where only one of the roots is valid. */ if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!tdp_enabled || mmu->pae_root || mmu->pml4_root || - mmu->pml5_root)) + (need_pml5 && mmu->pml5_root))) return -EIO; /* > > + if (mmu->pae_root && mmu->pml4_root) > > return 0; > > > > /* > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > Maxim Levitsky > >