On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 07:26:16AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2023, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 06:55:16PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > ....
> > > +static void kvm_mmu_prepare_memory_fault_exit(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > + struct kvm_page_fault *fault)
> > > +{
> > > + kvm_prepare_memory_fault_exit(vcpu, fault->gfn << PAGE_SHIFT,
> > > + PAGE_SIZE, fault->write, fault->exec,
> > > + fault->is_private);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int kvm_faultin_pfn_private(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > + struct kvm_page_fault *fault)
> > > +{
> > > + int max_order, r;
> > > +
> > > + if (!kvm_slot_can_be_private(fault->slot)) {
> > > + kvm_mmu_prepare_memory_fault_exit(vcpu, fault);
> > > + return -EFAULT;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + r = kvm_gmem_get_pfn(vcpu->kvm, fault->slot, fault->gfn, &fault->pfn,
> > > + &max_order);
> > > + if (r) {
> > > + kvm_mmu_prepare_memory_fault_exit(vcpu, fault);
> > > + return r;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + fault->max_level = min(kvm_max_level_for_order(max_order),
> > > + fault->max_level);
> > > + fault->map_writable = !(fault->slot->flags & KVM_MEM_READONLY);
> > > +
> > > + return RET_PF_CONTINUE;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > static int __kvm_faultin_pfn(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_page_fault *fault)
> > > {
> > > struct kvm_memory_slot *slot = fault->slot;
> > > @@ -4293,6 +4356,14 @@ static int __kvm_faultin_pfn(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_page_fault *fault
> > > return RET_PF_EMULATE;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + if (fault->is_private != kvm_mem_is_private(vcpu->kvm, fault->gfn)) {
> > In patch 21,
> > fault->is_private is set as:
> > ".is_private = kvm_mem_is_private(vcpu->kvm, cr2_or_gpa >> PAGE_SHIFT)",
> > then, the inequality here means memory attribute has been updated after
> > last check.
> > So, why an exit to user space for converting is required instead of a mere retry?
> >
> > Or, is it because how .is_private is assigned in patch 21 is subjected to change
> > in future?
>
> This. Retrying on SNP or TDX would hang the guest. I suppose we could special
Is this because if the guest access a page in private way (e.g. via
private key in TDX), the returned page must be a private page?
> case VMs where .is_private is derived from the memory attributes, but the
> SW_PROTECTED_VM type is primary a development vehicle at this point. I'd like to
> have it mimic SNP/TDX as much as possible; performance is a secondary concern.
Ok. But this mimic is somewhat confusing as it may be problematic in below scenario,
though sane guest should ensure no one is accessing a page before doing memory
conversion.
CPU 0 CPU 1
access GFN A in private way
fault->is_private=true
convert GFN A to shared
set memory attribute of A to shared
faultin, mismatch and exit
set memory attribute of A
to private
vCPU access GFN A in shared way
fault->is_private = true
faultin, match and map a private PFN B
vCPU accesses private PFN B in shared way
>
> E.g. userspace needs to be prepared for "spurious" exits due to races on SNP and
> TDX, which this can theoretically exercise. Though the window is quite small so
> I doubt that'll actually happen in practice; which of course also makes it less
> important to retry instead of exiting.
