Re: [PATCH 0/2] x86/kvm: Force legacy PCI hole as WB under SNP/TDX

[Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2025, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> On 14.07.25 г. 12:06 ч., Binbin Wu wrote:
> > On 7/10/2025 12:54 AM, Jianxiong Gao wrote:
> > > I tested this patch on top of commit 8e690b817e38, however we are
> > > still experiencing the same failure.
> > > 
> > I didn't reproduce the issue with QEMU.
> > After some comparison on how QEMU building the ACPI tables for HPET and
> > TPM,
> > 
> > - For HPET, the HPET range is added as Operation Region:
> >      aml_append(dev,
> >          aml_operation_region("HPTM", AML_SYSTEM_MEMORY,
> > aml_int(HPET_BASE),
> >                               HPET_LEN));
> > 
> > - For TPM, the range is added as 32-Bit Fixed Memory Range:
> >      if (TPM_IS_TIS_ISA(tpm_find())) {
> >          aml_append(crs, aml_memory32_fixed(TPM_TIS_ADDR_BASE,
> >                     TPM_TIS_ADDR_SIZE, AML_READ_WRITE));
> >      }
> > 
> > So, in KVM, the code patch of TPM is different from the trace for HPET in
> > the patch https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20250201005048.657470-3-seanjc@google.com/,
> > HPET will trigger the code path acpi_os_map_iomem(), but TPM doesn't.

Argh, I was looking at the wrong TPM resource when poking through QEMU.  I peeked
at TPM_PPI_ADDR_BASE, which gets an AML_SYSTEM_MEMORY entry, not TPM_TIS_ADDR_BASE.

*sigh*

Note, the HPET is also enumerated as a fixed resource:

    crs = aml_resource_template();
    aml_append(crs, aml_memory32_fixed(HPET_BASE, HPET_LEN, AML_READ_ONLY));
    aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_CRS", crs));

If I comment out the AML_SYSTEM_MEMORY entry for HPET, the kernel's auto-mapping
does NOT kick in (the kernel complains about required resources being missing,
but that's expected).  So I'm pretty sure it's the _lack_ of an AML_SYSTEM_MEMORY
entry for TPM TIS in QEMU's ACPI tables that make everything happy

I can't for the life of me suss out exactly what Google's ACPI tables will look
like.  I'll follow-up internally to try and get an answer on that front.

In the meantime, can someone who has reproduced the real issue get backtraces to
confirm or disprove that acpi_os_map_iomem() is trying to map the TPM TIS range
as WB?  E.g. with something like so:

diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c b/arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c
index 2e7923844afe..6c3c40909ef9 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c
@@ -528,6 +528,9 @@ int memtype_reserve(u64 start, u64 end, enum page_cache_mode req_type,
 
        start = sanitize_phys(start);
 
+       WARN(start == 0xFED40000,
+            "Mapping TPM TIS with req_type = %u\n", req_type);
+
        /*
         * The end address passed into this function is exclusive, but
         * sanitize_phys() expects an inclusive address.
---