On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 06:03:52PM -0700, Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 02:03:26PM +0000, > "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, 2024-04-09 at 18:12 -0700, Isaku Yamahata wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 06:51:40PM +0000, > > > Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 08, 2024, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 2024-04-08 at 09:20 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > > > > > Another option is that, KVM doesn't allow userspace to configure > > > > > > > CPUID(0x8000_0008).EAX[7:0]. Instead, it provides a gpaw field in struct > > > > > > > kvm_tdx_init_vm for userspace to configure directly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you prefer? > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, neither. I think the best approach is to build on Gerd's series to have KVM > > > > > > select 4-level vs. 5-level based on the enumerated guest.MAXPHYADDR, not on > > > > > > host.MAXPHYADDR. > > > > > > > > > > So then GPAW would be coded to basically best fit the supported guest.MAXPHYADDR within KVM. QEMU > > > > > could look at the supported guest.MAXPHYADDR and use matching logic to determine GPAW. > > > > > > > > Off topic, any chance I can bribe/convince you to wrap your email replies closer > > > > to 80 chars, not 100? Yeah, checkpath no longer complains when code exceeds 80 > > > > chars, but my brain is so well trained for 80 that it actually slows me down a > > > > bit when reading mails that are wrapped at 100 chars. > > > > > > > > > Or are you suggesting that KVM should look at the value of CPUID(0X8000_0008).eax[23:16] passed from > > > > > userspace? > > > > > > > > This. Note, my pseudo-patch incorrectly looked at bits 15:8, that was just me > > > > trying to go off memory. > > > > > > > > > I'm not following the code examples involving struct kvm_vcpu. Since TDX > > > > > configures these at a VM level, there isn't a vcpu. > > > > > > > > Ah, I take it GPAW is a VM-scope knob? I forget where we ended up with the ordering > > > > of TDX commands vs. creating vCPUs. Does KVM allow creating vCPU structures in > > > > advance of the TDX INIT call? If so, the least awful solution might be to use > > > > vCPU0's CPUID. > > > > > > The current order is, KVM vm creation (KVM_CREATE_VM), > > > KVM vcpu creation(KVM_CREATE_VCPU), TDX VM initialization (KVM_TDX_INIT_VM). > > > and TDX VCPU initialization(KVM_TDX_INIT_VCPU). > > > We can call KVM_SET_CPUID2 before KVM_TDX_INIT_VM. We can remove cpuid part > > > from struct kvm_tdx_init_vm by vcpu0 cpuid. > > > > What's the reason to call KVM_TDX_INIT_VM after KVM_CREATE_VCPU? > > The KVM_TDX_INIT_VM (it requires cpuids) doesn't requires any order between two, > KVM_TDX_INIT_VM and KVM_CREATE_VCPU. We can call KVM_TDX_INIT_VM before or > after KVM_CREATE_VCPU because there is no limitation between two. > > The v5 TDX QEMU happens to call KVM_CREATE_VCPU and then KVM_TDX_INIT_VM > because it creates CPUIDs for KVM_TDX_INIT_VM from qemu vCPU structures after > KVM_GET_CPUID2. Which is after KVM_CREATE_VCPU. Sorry, let me correct it. QEMU creates QEMU's vCPU struct with its CPUIDs. KVM_TDX_INIT_VM, KVM_CREATE_VCPU, and KVM_SET_CPUID2. QEMU passes CPUIDs as is to KVM_SET_CPUID2. The v19 KVM_TDX_INIT_VM checks if the KVM vCPU is not created yet. But it's can be relaxed. -- Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx>
