On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 12:32 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > +void sev_gmem_invalidate(kvm_pfn_t start, kvm_pfn_t end)
> > +{
> > + kvm_pfn_t pfn;
> > +
> > + pr_debug("%s: PFN start 0x%llx PFN end 0x%llx\n", __func__, start, end);
> > +
> > + for (pfn = start; pfn < end;) {
> > + bool use_2m_update = false;
> > + int rc, rmp_level;
> > + bool assigned;
> > +
> > + rc = snp_lookup_rmpentry(pfn, &assigned, &rmp_level);
> > + if (WARN_ONCE(rc, "SEV: Failed to retrieve RMP entry for PFN 0x%llx error %d\n",
> > + pfn, rc))
> > + goto next_pfn;
>
> This is comically trivial to hit, as it fires when running guest_memfd_test on a
> !SNP host. Presumably the correct fix is to simply do nothing for !sev_snp_guest(),
> but that's easier said than done due to the lack of a @kvm in .gmem_invalidate().
>
> That too is not a big fix, but that's beside the point. IMO, the fact that I'm
> the first person to (completely inadvertantly) hit this rather basic bug is a
> good hint that we should wait until 6.11 to merge SNP support.
Of course there is an explanation - I usually run all the tests before
pushing anything to kvm/next, here I did not do it because 1) I was
busy with the merge window and 2) I wanted to give exposure to the
code in linux-next, which was the right call indeed but it's beside
the point. Between the clang issue and this one, it's clear that even
though the implementation is 99.99% okay (especially considering the
size), there are a few kinks to fix.
I'll fix everything up and re-push to kvm/next, but I agree that we
shouldn't rush it any further. What really matters is that development
on userspace can proceed.
This also confirms that it's important to replace kvm/next with
kvm/queue in linux-next, since linux-next doesn't care that much about
branches that rebase.
Paolo
