On Tue, 2023-07-11 at 13:38 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > +/* All TDX-usable memory regions. Protected by mem_hotplug_lock. */
> > +static LIST_HEAD(tdx_memlist);
> > +
> > /*
> > * Wrapper of __seamcall() to convert SEAMCALL leaf function error code
> > * to kernel error code. @seamcall_ret and @out contain the SEAMCALL
> > @@ -204,6 +214,79 @@ static int tdx_get_sysinfo(struct tdsysinfo_struct *sysinfo,
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Add a memory region as a TDX memory block. The caller must make sure
> > + * all memory regions are added in address ascending order and don't
> > + * overlap.
> > + */
> > +static int add_tdx_memblock(struct list_head *tmb_list, unsigned long start_pfn,
> > + unsigned long end_pfn)
> > +{
> > + struct tdx_memblock *tmb;
> > +
> > + tmb = kmalloc(sizeof(*tmb), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!tmb)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&tmb->list);
> > + tmb->start_pfn = start_pfn;
> > + tmb->end_pfn = end_pfn;
> > +
> > + /* @tmb_list is protected by mem_hotplug_lock */
>
> If the list is static and independent of memory hotplug, why does it
> have to be protected?
Thanks for review!
The @tdx_memlist itself is a static variable, but the elements in the list are
built during module initialization, so we need to protect the list from memory
hotplug code path.
>
> I assume because the memory notifier might currently trigger before
> building the list.
>
> Not sure if that is the right approach. See below.
>
> > + list_add_tail(&tmb->list, tmb_list);
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void free_tdx_memlist(struct list_head *tmb_list)
> > +{
> > + /* @tmb_list is protected by mem_hotplug_lock */
> > + while (!list_empty(tmb_list)) {
> > + struct tdx_memblock *tmb = list_first_entry(tmb_list,
> > + struct tdx_memblock, list);
> > +
> > + list_del(&tmb->list);
> > + kfree(tmb);
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Ensure that all memblock memory regions are convertible to TDX
> > + * memory. Once this has been established, stash the memblock
> > + * ranges off in a secondary structure because memblock is modified
> > + * in memory hotplug while TDX memory regions are fixed.
> > + */
> > +static int build_tdx_memlist(struct list_head *tmb_list)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn;
> > + int i, ret;
> > +
> > + for_each_mem_pfn_range(i, MAX_NUMNODES, &start_pfn, &end_pfn, NULL) {
> > + /*
> > + * The first 1MB is not reported as TDX convertible memory.
> > + * Although the first 1MB is always reserved and won't end up
> > + * to the page allocator, it is still in memblock's memory
> > + * regions. Skip them manually to exclude them as TDX memory.
> > + */
> > + start_pfn = max(start_pfn, PHYS_PFN(SZ_1M));
> > + if (start_pfn >= end_pfn)
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Add the memory regions as TDX memory. The regions in
> > + * memblock has already guaranteed they are in address
> > + * ascending order and don't overlap.
> > + */
> > + ret = add_tdx_memblock(tmb_list, start_pfn, end_pfn);
> > + if (ret)
> > + goto err;
> > + }
>
> So at the time init_tdx_module() is called, you simply go over all
> memblocks.
>
> But how can you be sure that they are TDX-capable?
If any memory isn't TDX-capable, the later SEAMCALL TDH.SYS.CONFIG will fail.
There's no explicit check to see whether all memblocks are within CMRs here, but
depends on the TDH.SYS.CONFIG to do that. This is mainly for code simplicity.
>
> While the memory notifier will deny onlining new memory blocks,
> add_memory() already happened and added a new memory block to the system
> (and to memblock). See add_memory_resource().
Yes but this is fine, as long as they are not "plugged" into the buddy system.
>
> It might be cleaner to build the list once during module init (before
> any memory hotplug can happen and before we tear down memblock) and not
> require ARCH_KEEP_MEMBLOCK. Essentially, before registering the
> notifier. So the list is really static.
This can be another solution. In fact I tried this before. But one problem is
when TDX module happens, some hot-added memory may already have been hot-added
and/or become online. So during module initialization, we cannot simply pass
the TDX memblocks built during kernel boot to the TDX module, but need to verify
the current memblocks (this will ARCH_KEEP_MEMBLOCK) or the online memory_blocks
don't contain any memory that isn't in TDX memblocks. To me this approach isn't
simpler than the current approach.
>
> But maybe I am missing something.
>
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +err:
> > + free_tdx_memlist(tmb_list);
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > static int init_tdx_module(void)
> > {
> > struct tdsysinfo_struct *sysinfo;
> > @@ -230,10 +313,25 @@ static int init_tdx_module(void)
> > if (ret)
> > goto out;
>
> [...]
>
> >
> > +struct tdx_memblock {
> > + struct list_head list;
> > + unsigned long start_pfn;
> > + unsigned long end_pfn;
> > +};
>
> If it's never consumed by someone else, maybe keep it local to the c file?
We can, and actually I did this in the old versions, but I changed to put here
because there's another structure 'struct tdmr_info_list' being added in later
patch. Also, if we move this structure to .c file, then we should move all
kernel-defined structures/type declarations to the .c file too (for those
architecture structures I want to keep them in tdx.h as they are lengthy and can
be used by KVM in the future). I somehow found it's not easy to read too.
But I am fine with either way.
Kirill/Dave, do you have any comments?
>
> > +
> > struct tdx_module_output;
> > u64 __seamcall(u64 fn, u64 rcx, u64 rdx, u64 r8, u64 r9,
> > struct tdx_module_output *out);
>
