From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com>
Cc: Rick P Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
"sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev"
<sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev>,
"pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] KVM: TDX: Don't assume exit_reason[31:16] as all-0 in tdx_to_vmx_exit_reason()
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2026 11:19:16 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aoNQpP-BQKiZL47O@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d67eb097-1223-4b68-92d4-1510d3d7be7c@intel.com>
On Mon, Aug 17, 2026, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> On 8/14/2026 11:12 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 14, 2026, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> > > On 8/14/2026 7:44 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2026, Rick P Edgecombe wrote:
> > > > > Side note. I really dislike how tangled this area is for something that seems
> > > > > like it should be much more straightforward. Deriving partially I think from the
> > > > > overloading of the TDVMCALL leafs with the exit reasons. So we have things like:
> > > > > ...
> > > > > case EXIT_REASON_EPT_VIOLATION:
> > > > > return EXIT_REASON_EPT_MISCONFIG;
> > > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > I peeked at that code again, and FWIW I still think swizzling the exit_reason for
> > > > TDVMCALL is the least awful solution. If we don't do that, then we'll have to
> > > > update every single use of the exit_reason to demux TDVMCALL into the "real" exit
> > > > reason, which will be a mess.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure if you read my idea[1]?
> > >
> > > I think there is only one place KVM cares about the exit_reason TDVMCALL,
> > > just the
> > >
> > > case EXIT_REASON_TDCALL:
> >
> > No, the massaged exit_reason is also subtley consumed via trace_kvm_exit().
>
> yeah. This is exactly the one I don't like, it looks like trace_kvm_exit()
> is tracing the wrong exit reason, though it is by intentional.
>
> > It's also consumed by tdx_complete_emulated_msr():
> >
> > if (vmx_get_exit_reason(vcpu).basic == EXIT_REASON_MSR_READ)
> >
> > and by tdx_interrupt_allowed()
> >
> > return vmx_get_exit_reason(vcpu).basic != EXIT_REASON_HLT ||
> > !to_tdx(vcpu)->vp_enter_args.r12;
> >
> > and by tdx_protected_apic_has_interrupt():
> >
> > if (vmx_get_exit_reason(vcpu).basic != EXIT_REASON_HLT ||
> > to_tdx(vcpu)->vp_enter_args.r12)
> > return false;
>
> Ah, I really should have checked the code more carefully.
>
> > > in tdx_handle_exit().
> > > [1]
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/646f9595-459f-4224-b4e5-4ec2eecc0bc6@intel.com/
> > > > And once we track the exit_reason separately from vp_enter_ret, IMO it all becomes
> > > > more logical and easier to follow. vp_enter_ret holds the information about why
> > > > VP.ENTER returned/exited, while exit_reason holds information about why the _guest_
> > > > exited. Obviously it's imperfect since we're still fudging EXIT_REASON_EPT_MISCONFIG,
> > > > but again, I think that's a better alternative than demuxing exit_reason in multiple
> > > > locations.
> > >
> > > The question do we really need to swizzle EXIT_REASON_TDCALL to other exit
> > > reasons ahead? why cannot them just be handled in the central handler for
> > > EXIT_REASON_TDCALL?
> >
> > Because as above, it's not as central as you think. If we want to not swizzle
> > the exit_reason, then IMO the only sane way to do that is to not track exit_reason
> > for TDX vCPUs, i.e. move vcpu_vt.exit_reason back to vcpu_vmx and force TDX to
> > always demux vp_enter_ret every time.
>
> How about adding a specific field to track the TDVMCALL leaf? Full diff as
> below (the EPT MISCONFIG part can be split into a separate one)
I like it even less than demuxing vp_enter_ret on demand. It has all the same
flaws as demuxing vp_enter_ret, because it's effectively just a cache of the
result of demuxing vp_enter_ret. And caching values on entry/exit boundaries
adds additional risk; I can point you at a number of bugs in the past where KVM
consumed stale data, e.g. because some chunk of code got moved to run before a
cached field was refreshed. That's unlikekly to be a problem here, but anytime
data is cached it introduces risk of consuming stale data.
And the cost of demuxing vp_enter_ret every time doesn't concern me, at all.
What I don't like is relying on call sites to know that the exit_reason needs to
be demuxed in the first place, because that will be brittle and error prone.
That's why I'd be ok if vcpu_vt.exit_reason simply didn't exist: it becomes
impossible to check the wrong exit field because there's only one such field.
I'm ok caching the fully processed vcpu_vt.exit_reason, i.e. with the code now,
because only the TDVMCALL path needs to be aware that it may have undergone
processing, *and* KVM can WARN if that processing didn't happen as expected.
Whereas checking the "right" exit reason requires doing so in multiple paths and
doesn't have a natural sanity check.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-17 18:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-12 8:02 [PATCH v3 0/4] KVM: TDX: Enable VM-DoS Prevention Features for TDX Xiaoyao Li
2026-08-12 8:02 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] KVM: TDX: Enable Notify VM exit Xiaoyao Li
2026-08-12 8:02 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] KVM: TDX: Set bits 31:16 to 0 for the synthesized Exit Reason Xiaoyao Li
2026-08-12 21:58 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2026-08-12 8:02 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] KVM: TDX: Don't assume exit_reason[31:16] as all-0 in tdx_to_vmx_exit_reason() Xiaoyao Li
2026-08-12 8:23 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-12 9:07 ` Xiaoyao Li
2026-08-12 22:55 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2026-08-13 23:44 ` Sean Christopherson
2026-08-14 1:02 ` Xiaoyao Li
2026-08-14 15:12 ` Sean Christopherson
2026-08-17 2:49 ` Xiaoyao Li
2026-08-17 18:19 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2026-08-18 8:14 ` Xiaoyao Li
2026-08-18 20:18 ` Sean Christopherson
2026-08-13 0:14 ` Sean Christopherson
2026-08-13 8:42 ` Xiaoyao Li
2026-08-12 8:02 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] KVM: TDX: Enable Bus Lock VM exit Xiaoyao Li
2026-08-12 8:20 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-12 9:11 ` Xiaoyao Li
2026-08-13 0:06 ` Sean Christopherson
2026-08-12 22:58 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2026-08-13 11:17 ` Xiaoyao Li
2026-08-13 14:43 ` Sean Christopherson
2026-08-14 0:49 ` Xiaoyao Li
2026-08-14 15:46 ` Sean Christopherson
2026-08-15 13:28 ` Xiaoyao Li
2026-08-17 18:06 ` Sean Christopherson
2026-08-18 7:47 ` Xiaoyao Li
2026-08-18 16:17 ` Sean Christopherson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aoNQpP-BQKiZL47O@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=xiaoyao.li@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox