| Message ID | 8108cc2b8ff01ec22de68f0d0758ef0671db43fc.1708933498.git.isaku.yamahata@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v19,001/130] x86/virt/tdx: Rename _offset to _member for TD_SYSINFO_MAP() macro | expand |
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 12:25:12AM -0800, isaku.yamahata@intel.com wrote: > From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com> > > TDX wants to know the faulting address is shared or private so that the max > level is limited by Secure-EPT or not. Because fault->gfn doesn't include > shared bit, gfn doesn't tell if the faulting address is shared or not. > Pass is_private for TDX case. > > TDX logic will be if (!is_private) return 0; else return PG_LEVEL_4K. > > Signed-off-by: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com> > --- > arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 3 ++- > arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c | 3 ++- > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h > index d15f5b4b1656..57ce89fc2740 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h > @@ -1797,7 +1797,8 @@ struct kvm_x86_ops { > > gva_t (*get_untagged_addr)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gva_t gva, unsigned int flags); > > - int (*gmem_max_level)(struct kvm *kvm, kvm_pfn_t pfn, gfn_t gfn, u8 *max_level); > + int (*gmem_max_level)(struct kvm *kvm, kvm_pfn_t pfn, gfn_t gfn, > + bool is_private, u8 *max_level); > }; > > struct kvm_x86_nested_ops { > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c > index 1e5e12d2707d..22db1a9f528a 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c > @@ -4324,7 +4324,8 @@ static int kvm_faultin_pfn_private(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, > > max_level = kvm_max_level_for_order(max_order); > r = static_call(kvm_x86_gmem_max_level)(vcpu->kvm, fault->pfn, > - fault->gfn, &max_level); > + fault->gfn, fault->is_private, > + &max_level); fault->is_private is always true in kvm_faultin_pfn_private(). Besides, as shared page allocation will not go to kvm_faultin_pfn_private(), why do we need to add the "is_private" parameter ? > if (r) { > kvm_release_pfn_clean(fault->pfn); > return r; > -- > 2.25.1 > >
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 09:19:29AM +0800, Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@intel.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 12:25:12AM -0800, isaku.yamahata@intel.com wrote: > > From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com> > > > > TDX wants to know the faulting address is shared or private so that the max > > level is limited by Secure-EPT or not. Because fault->gfn doesn't include > > shared bit, gfn doesn't tell if the faulting address is shared or not. > > Pass is_private for TDX case. > > > > TDX logic will be if (!is_private) return 0; else return PG_LEVEL_4K. > > > > Signed-off-by: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com> > > --- > > arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 3 ++- > > arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c | 3 ++- > > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h > > index d15f5b4b1656..57ce89fc2740 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h > > @@ -1797,7 +1797,8 @@ struct kvm_x86_ops { > > > > gva_t (*get_untagged_addr)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gva_t gva, unsigned int flags); > > > > - int (*gmem_max_level)(struct kvm *kvm, kvm_pfn_t pfn, gfn_t gfn, u8 *max_level); > > + int (*gmem_max_level)(struct kvm *kvm, kvm_pfn_t pfn, gfn_t gfn, > > + bool is_private, u8 *max_level); > > }; > > > > struct kvm_x86_nested_ops { > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c > > index 1e5e12d2707d..22db1a9f528a 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c > > @@ -4324,7 +4324,8 @@ static int kvm_faultin_pfn_private(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, > > > > max_level = kvm_max_level_for_order(max_order); > > r = static_call(kvm_x86_gmem_max_level)(vcpu->kvm, fault->pfn, > > - fault->gfn, &max_level); > > + fault->gfn, fault->is_private, > > + &max_level); > fault->is_private is always true in kvm_faultin_pfn_private(). > Besides, as shared page allocation will not go to kvm_faultin_pfn_private(), > why do we need to add the "is_private" parameter ? You're right, we don't need this patch. As Paolo picked the patch to add a hook, the discussion is happening at https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240409234632.fb5mly7mkgvzbtqo@amd.com/#t
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h index d15f5b4b1656..57ce89fc2740 100644 --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h @@ -1797,7 +1797,8 @@ struct kvm_x86_ops { gva_t (*get_untagged_addr)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gva_t gva, unsigned int flags); - int (*gmem_max_level)(struct kvm *kvm, kvm_pfn_t pfn, gfn_t gfn, u8 *max_level); + int (*gmem_max_level)(struct kvm *kvm, kvm_pfn_t pfn, gfn_t gfn, + bool is_private, u8 *max_level); }; struct kvm_x86_nested_ops { diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c index 1e5e12d2707d..22db1a9f528a 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c @@ -4324,7 +4324,8 @@ static int kvm_faultin_pfn_private(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, max_level = kvm_max_level_for_order(max_order); r = static_call(kvm_x86_gmem_max_level)(vcpu->kvm, fault->pfn, - fault->gfn, &max_level); + fault->gfn, fault->is_private, + &max_level); if (r) { kvm_release_pfn_clean(fault->pfn); return r;