Re: [BUG] x86/virt/tdx: tdx_offline_cpu() violates tdx_cpu_flush_cache() preemption assert

["Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com>]

On Mon, 2026-05-11 at 22:33 +0100, David CARLIER wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>   In commit 597bdf6e068e ("x86/virt/tdx: Pull kexec cache flush logic into
>   arch/x86"), tdx_offline_cpu() gained a call to tdx_cpu_flush_cache(),
>   which starts with lockdep_assert_preemption_disabled().
> 
>   tdx_offline_cpu() is registered at CPUHP_AP_ONLINE_DYN. ONLINE-section
>   teardown callbacks run from the pinned per-CPU hotplug thread with
>   preemption and interrupts enabled (Documentation/core-api/cpu_hotplug.rst,
>   and cpuhp_thread_fun() only disables IRQs for atomic states).
> 
>   The other callers — tdx_shutdown_cpu() via on_each_cpu(), and the
>   crash path — satisfy the assertion. Only the offline path doesn't, and
>   the splat should fire on every offline once the TDX module is
>   initialized and the done: path is taken.
> 
>   Wrapping the call with preempt_disable() / preempt_enable() at the
>   offline site keeps the contract for the kexec/shutdown callers.
> 
>   Not yet reproduced on a debug kernel; reporting on inspection.
> 
>   Fixes: 597bdf6e068e ("x86/virt/tdx: Pull kexec cache flush logic
> into arch/x86")


Right the lockdep_assert_preemption_disabled() is wrong when
tdx_cpu_flush_cache() is called from CPUHP context (there's no functionality
issue, though, it's just the lockdep assertion is wrong).

It was introduced when the TDX host kexec support was added, so the above commit
is not the right one to blame.  Previously the tdx_cpu_flush_cache() was called
from KVM's module unload path, also via the CPUHP context.  The commit above
only moved it to TDX core's CPU offline path.

The latest version to fix is:

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20260407233333.1608820-1-kai.huang@intel.com/

but it needs rebasing now.