On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 1:32 AM Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> +static void vt_adjust_max_pa(void)
> +{
> + u64 tme_activate;
> +
> + mmu_max_gfn = __kvm_mmu_max_gfn();
> + rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_TME_ACTIVATE, tme_activate);
> + if (!(tme_activate & TME_ACTIVATE_LOCKED) ||
> + !(tme_activate & TME_ACTIVATE_ENABLED))
> + return;
> +
> + mmu_max_gfn -= (gfn_t)TDX_RESERVED_KEYID_BITS(tme_activate);
This would be be >>=, not "-=". But I think this should not look at
TME MSRs directly, instead it can use boot_cpu_data.x86_phys_bits. You
can use it instead of shadow_phys_bits in __kvm_mmu_max_gfn() and then
VMX does not need any adjustment.
That said, this is not a bugfix, it's just an optimization.
Paolo
> + }
>
> out:
> /* kfree() accepts NULL. */
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> index 7f89405c8bc4..c519bb9c9559 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -12693,6 +12693,7 @@ int kvm_arch_init_vm(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long type)
> if (ret)
> goto out;
>
> + kvm->arch.mmu_max_gfn = __kvm_mmu_max_gfn();
> kvm_mmu_init_vm(kvm);
>
> ret = static_call(kvm_x86_vm_init)(kvm);
> @@ -13030,7 +13031,7 @@ int kvm_arch_prepare_memory_region(struct kvm *kvm,
> return -EINVAL;
>
> if (change == KVM_MR_CREATE || change == KVM_MR_MOVE) {
> - if ((new->base_gfn + new->npages - 1) > kvm_mmu_max_gfn())
> + if ((new->base_gfn + new->npages - 1) > kvm_mmu_max_gfn(kvm))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> #if 0
>
> --
> Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx>
>
