Re: [PATCH v7 041/102] KVM: VMX: Introduce test mode related to EPT violation VE

Isaku Yamahata
2022-07-19T14:49:45Z

On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 02:23:43PM +1200,
Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 2022-06-27 at 14:53 -0700, isaku.yamahata@intel.com wrote:
> > From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
> >
> > To support TDX, KVM is enhanced to operate with #VE. For TDX, KVM programs
> > to inject #VE conditionally and set #VE suppress bit in EPT entry. For VMX
> > case, #VE isn't used. If #VE happens for VMX, it's a bug. To be
> > defensive (test that VMX case isn't broken), introduce option
> > ept_violation_ve_test and when it's set, set error.
>
> I don't see why we need this patch. It may be helpful during your test, but why
> do we need this patch for formal submission?
>
> And for a normal guest, what prevents one vcpu from sending #VE IPI to another
> vcpu?

Paolo suggested it as follows. Maybe it should be kernel config.
(I forgot to add suggested-by. I'll add it)

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/84d56339-4a8a-6ddb-17cb-12074588ba9c@redhat.com/

> On 3/4/22 20:48, isaku.yamahata@intel.com wrote:
> > + if (enable_ept) {
> > + const u64 init_value = enable_tdx ? VMX_EPT_SUPPRESS_VE_BIT : 0ull;
> > kvm_mmu_set_ept_masks(enable_ept_ad_bits,
> > - cpu_has_vmx_ept_execute_only());
> > + cpu_has_vmx_ept_execute_only(), init_value);
> > + kvm_mmu_set_spte_init_value(init_value);
> > + }
>
> I think kvm-intel.ko should use VMX_EPT_SUPPRESS_VE_BIT unconditionally
> as the init value. The bit is ignored anyway if the "EPT-violation #VE"
> execution control is 0. Otherwise looks good, but I have a couple more
> crazy ideas:
>
> 1) there could even be a test mode where KVM enables the execution
> control, traps #VE in the exception bitmap, and shouts loudly if it gets
> a #VE. That might avoid hard-to-find bugs due to forgetting about
> VMX_EPT_SUPPRESS_VE_BIT.
>
> 2) or even, perhaps the init_value for the TDP MMU could set bit 63
> _unconditionally_, because KVM always sets the NX bit on AMD hardware.
> That would remove the whole infrastructure to keep shadow_init_value,
> because it would be constant 0 in mmu.c and constant BIT(63) in tdp_mmu.c.
>
> Sean, what do you think?
>
> Paolo
--
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@gmail.com>