From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4C8FC433F5 for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 01:09:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233392AbiDGBLG (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Apr 2022 21:11:06 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:54024 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233147AbiDGBLG (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Apr 2022 21:11:06 -0400 Received: from mga07.intel.com (mga07.intel.com [134.134.136.100]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C75269BADE; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 18:09:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1649293747; x=1680829747; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZGVU3ALt+E9ZDKDB1nnL7gAFrYx8O5DiBDhZ/hjTw+M=; b=hPKbCzA7Wh3O33TevW5r1SytAQS4UJCw1RUB3Hr30VmaRHry31XuWfgJ RqJw3yVtAjhJcWxxNMjIecPx6V57kX91IhpZjxdWwddgIHhVL2GbCRfy4 X8f045DrKMWcrDqqs+MepqdfgjYVdRoZc08wx4xpHD56WFLY7zcm3V1TM kg6WDcTSdp5pqfrcgeSuatvsHBZK5c1OaY9jBBHhP/v67N7J08VuMbYDP oSsTDx8EDGNe1YkynW38E2whhn948wlZX8e8j2993DvL9A5zjsrIp683e 8LPR52wW18FuahLhZebEioo6jJLRBFB/Q76QcImHi7psCjNHPTj7orWv5 g==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10309"; a="324361315" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.90,241,1643702400"; d="scan'208";a="324361315" Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by orsmga105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Apr 2022 18:09:07 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.90,241,1643702400"; d="scan'208";a="722743532" Received: from zitianwa-mobl.ccr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.255.28.125]) ([10.255.28.125]) by orsmga005-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Apr 2022 18:09:04 -0700 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 09:09:02 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0 Thunderbird/91.7.0 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 086/104] KVM: TDX: handle ept violation/misconfig exit Content-Language: en-US To: Sagi Shahar , "Yamahata, Isaku" Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, isaku.yamahata@gmail.com, Paolo Bonzini , Jim Mattson , Erdem Aktas , Connor Kuehl , Sean Christopherson References: <1df5271baa641d9d189edb86f9ee0921ea3a83e0.1646422845.git.isaku.yamahata@intel.com> From: Xiaoyao Li In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org On 4/7/2022 4:50 AM, Sagi Shahar wrote: > On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 12:23 PM wrote: >> >> From: Isaku Yamahata >> >> On EPT violation, call a common function, __vmx_handle_ept_violation() to >> trigger x86 MMU code. On EPT misconfiguration, exit to ring 3 with >> KVM_EXIT_UNKNOWN. because EPT misconfiguration can't happen as MMIO is >> trigged by TDG.VP.VMCALL. No point to set a misconfiguration value for the >> fast path. >> >> Signed-off-by: Isaku Yamahata >> --- >> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- >> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c >> index 6fbe89bcfe1e..2c35dcad077e 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c >> @@ -1081,6 +1081,40 @@ void tdx_deliver_interrupt(struct kvm_lapic *apic, int delivery_mode, >> __vmx_deliver_posted_interrupt(vcpu, &tdx->pi_desc, vector); >> } >> >> +#define TDX_SEPT_PFERR (PFERR_WRITE_MASK | PFERR_USER_MASK) > > TDX_SEPT_PFERR is defined using PFERR_.* bitmask but > __vmx_handle_ept_violation is accepting an EPT_VIOLATION_.* bitmask. > so (PFERR_WRITE_MASK | PFERR_USER_MASK) will get interpreted as > (EPT_VIOLATION_ACC_WRITE | EPT_VIOLATION_ACC_INSTR) which will get > translated to (PFERR_WRITE_MASK | PFERR_FETCH_MASK). Was that the > intention of this code? No. It's a mistake. We have corrected internally you can find corrected code in github repo or see it in next version.