Re: [PATCH v19 023/130] KVM: TDX: Initialize the TDX module when loading the KVM intel kernel module

Sean Christopherson
2024-04-16T20:58:43Z

On Fri, Apr 12, 2024, Kai Huang wrote:
> On 12/04/2024 2:03 am, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024, Kai Huang wrote:
> > > I can certainly follow up with this and generate a reviewable patchset if I
> > > can confirm with you that this is what you want?
> >
> > Yes, I think it's the right direction. I still have minor concerns about VMX
> > being enabled while kvm.ko is loaded, which means that VMXON will _always_ be
> > enabled if KVM is built-in. But after seeing the complexity that is needed to
> > safely initialize TDX, and after seeing just how much complexity KVM already
> > has because it enables VMX on-demand (I hadn't actually tried removing that code
> > before), I think the cost of that complexity far outweighs the risk of "always"
> > being post-VMXON.
>
> Does always leaving VMXON have any actual damage, given we have emergency
> virtualization shutdown?

Being post-VMXON increases the risk of kexec() into the kdump kernel failing.
The tradeoffs that we're trying to balance are: is the risk of kexec() failing
due to the complexity of the emergency VMX code higher than the risk of us breaking
things in general due to taking on a ton of complexity to juggle VMXON for TDX?

After seeing the latest round of TDX code, my opinion is that being post-VMXON
is less risky overall, in no small part because we need that to work anyways for
hosts that are actively running VMs.

> > Within reason, I recommend getting feedback from others before you spend _too_
> > much time on this. It's entirely possible I'm missing/forgetting some other angle.
>
> Sure. Could you suggest who should we try to get feedback from?
>
> Perhaps you can just help to Cc them?

I didn't have anyone in particular in mind, I just really want *someone* to weigh
in as a sanity check.