Re: [RFC PATCH 09/12] KVM: TDX: Fold tdx_mem_page_record_premap_cnt() into its sole caller

[Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>]

Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2025, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 05:05:19PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > @@ -1641,14 +1618,30 @@ static int tdx_sept_set_private_spte(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t gfn,
> > >  		return -EIO;

[snip]

> > >  	/*
> > > -	 * Read 'pre_fault_allowed' before 'kvm_tdx->state'; see matching
> > > -	 * barrier in tdx_td_finalize().
> > > +	 * Ensure pre_fault_allowed is read by kvm_arch_vcpu_pre_fault_memory()
> > > +	 * before kvm_tdx->state.  Userspace must not be allowed to pre-fault
> > > +	 * arbitrary memory until the initial memory image is finalized.  Pairs
> > > +	 * with the smp_wmb() in tdx_td_finalize().
> > >  	 */
> > >  	smp_rmb();
> > > -	if (likely(kvm_tdx->state == TD_STATE_RUNNABLE))
> > > -		return tdx_mem_page_aug(kvm, gfn, level, pfn);
> > >  
> > > -	return tdx_mem_page_record_premap_cnt(kvm, gfn, level, pfn);
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * If the TD isn't finalized/runnable, then userspace is initializing
> > > +	 * the VM image via KVM_TDX_INIT_MEM_REGION.  Increment the number of
> > > +	 * pages that need to be initialized via TDH.MEM.PAGE.ADD (PAGE.ADD
> > > +	 * requires a pre-existing S-EPT mapping).  KVM_TDX_FINALIZE_VM checks
> > > +	 * the counter to ensure all mapped pages have been added to the image,
> > > +	 * to prevent running the TD with uninitialized memory.
> > To prevent the mismatch between mirror EPT and the S-EPT?
> 
> No?  Because KVM bumps the count when installing the S-EPT and decrements it
> on AUG, so I don't see how nr_premapped guards against M-EPT vs. S-EPT issues?
> 
> > e.g., Before KVM_TDX_FINALIZE_VM, if userspace performs a zap after the
> > TDH.MEM.PAGE.ADD, the page will be removed from the S-EPT. The count of
> > nr_premapped will not change after the successful TDH.MEM.RANGE.BLOCK and
> > TDH.MEM.PAGE.REMOVE.
> 
> Eww.  It would be nice to close that hole, but I suppose it's futile, e.g. the
> underlying problem is unexpectedly removing pages from the initial, whether the
> VMM is doing stupid things before vs. after FINALIZE doesn't really matter.
> 
> > As a result, the TD will still run with uninitialized memory.
> 
> No?  Because BLOCK+REMOVE means there are no valid S-EPT mappings.  There's a
> "hole" that the guest might not expect, but that hole will trigger an EPT
> violation and only get "filled" if the guest explicitly accepts an AUG'd page.
> 
> Side topic, why does KVM tolerate tdh_mem_page_add() failure?  IIUC, playing
> nice with tdh_mem_page_add() failure necessitates both the
> tdx_is_sept_zap_err_due_to_premap() craziness and the check in tdx_td_finalize()
> that all pending pages have been consumed.
> 
> What reasonable use case is there for gracefully handling tdh_mem_page_add() failure?
> 
> If there is a need to handle failure, I gotta imagine it's only for the -EBUSY
> case.  And if it's only for -EBUSY, why can't that be handled by retrying in
> tdx_vcpu_init_mem_region()?  If tdx_vcpu_init_mem_region() guarantees that all
> pages mapped into the S-EPT are ADDed, then it can assert that there are no
> pending pages when it completes (even if it "fails"), and similarly
> tdx_td_finalize() can KVM_BUG_ON/WARN_ON the number of pending pages being
> non-zero.

Ah just reading this...  yea I'm wondering the same thing.

Ira

[snip]