Re: [PATCH v3 00/21] TDX host kernel support

[Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>]

On Thu, May 05, 2022 at 06:51:20AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> [ add Mike ]
> 
> On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 2:54 AM Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com> wrote:
> [..]
> >
> > Hi Dave,
> >
> > Sorry to ping (trying to close this).
> >
> > Given we don't need to consider kmem-hot-add legacy PMEM after TDX module
> > initialization, I think for now it's totally fine to exclude legacy PMEMs from
> > TDMRs.  The worst case is when someone tries to use them as TD guest backend
> > directly, the TD will fail to create.  IMO it's acceptable, as it is supposedly
> > that no one should just use some random backend to run TD.
> 
> The platform will already do this, right? I don't understand why this
> is trying to take proactive action versus documenting the error
> conditions and steps someone needs to take to avoid unconvertible
> memory. There is already the CONFIG_HMEM_REPORTING that describes
> relative performance properties between initiators and targets, it
> seems fitting to also add security properties between initiators and
> targets so someone can enumerate the numa-mempolicy that avoids
> unconvertible memory.
> 
> No, special casing in hotplug code paths needed.
> 
> >
> > I think w/o needing to include legacy PMEM, it's better to get all TDX memory
> > blocks based on memblock, but not e820.  The pages managed by page allocator are
> > from memblock anyway (w/o those from memory hotplug).
> >
> > And I also think it makes more sense to introduce 'tdx_memblock' and
> > 'tdx_memory' data structures to gather all TDX memory blocks during boot when
> > memblock is still alive.  When TDX module is initialized during runtime, TDMRs
> > can be created based on the 'struct tdx_memory' which contains all TDX memory
> > blocks we gathered based on memblock during boot.  This is also more flexible to
> > support other TDX memory from other sources such as CLX memory in the future.
> >
> > Please let me know if you have any objection?  Thanks!
> 
> It's already the case that x86 maintains sideband structures to
> preserve memory after exiting the early memblock code. Mike, correct
> me if I am wrong, but adding more is less desirable than just keeping
> the memblock around?

TBH, I didn't read the entire thread yet, but at the first glance, keeping
memblock around is much more preferable that adding yet another { .start,
.end, .flags } data structure. To keep memblock after boot all is needed is
something like

	select ARCH_KEEP_MEMBLOCK if INTEL_TDX_HOST

I'll take a closer look next week on the entire series, maybe I'm missing
some details.

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.