On 10/13/21 1:16 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Wed, Oct 13, 2021, Sean Christopherson wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021, Brijesh Singh wrote: >>> When SEV-SNP is enabled in the guest VM, the guest memory pages can >>> either be a private or shared. A write from the hypervisor goes through >>> the RMP checks. If hardware sees that hypervisor is attempting to write >>> to a guest private page, then it triggers an RMP violation #PF. >>> >>> To avoid the RMP violation, add post_{map,unmap}_gfn() ops that can be >>> used to verify that its safe to map a given guest page. Use the SRCU to >>> protect against the page state change for existing mapped pages. >> SRCU isn't protecting anything. The synchronize_srcu_expedited() in the PSC code >> forces it to wait for existing maps to go away, but it doesn't prevent new maps >> from being created while the actual RMP updates are in-flight. Most telling is >> that the RMP updates happen _after_ the synchronize_srcu_expedited() call. > Argh, another goof on my part. Rereading prior feedback, I see that I loosely > suggested SRCU as a possible solution. That was a bad, bad suggestion. I think > (hope) I made it offhand without really thinking it through. SRCU can't work in > this case, because the whole premise of Read-Copy-Update is that there can be > multiple copies of the data. That simply can't be true for the RMP as hardware > operates on a single table. > > In the future, please don't hesitate to push back on and/or question suggestions, > especially those that are made without concrete examples, i.e. are likely off the > cuff. My goal isn't to set you up for failure :-/ What do you think about going back to my initial proposal of per-gfn tracking [1] ? We can limit the changes to just for the kvm_vcpu_map() and let the copy_to_user() take a fault and return an error (if it attempt to write to guest private). If PSC happen while lock is held then simplify return and let the guest retry PSC. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210707183616.5620-36-brijesh.singh@xxxxxxx/