Re: [PATCH v10 0/9] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM

Fuad Tabba
2023-01-17T14:33:08Z

Hi Sean,

On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 12:38 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2022, Chao Peng wrote:
> > This patch series implements KVM guest private memory for confidential
> > computing scenarios like Intel TDX[1]. If a TDX host accesses
> > TDX-protected guest memory, machine check can happen which can further
> > crash the running host system, this is terrible for multi-tenant
> > configurations. The host accesses include those from KVM userspace like
> > QEMU. This series addresses KVM userspace induced crash by introducing
> > new mm and KVM interfaces so KVM userspace can still manage guest memory
> > via a fd-based approach, but it can never access the guest memory
> > content.
> >
> > The patch series touches both core mm and KVM code. I appreciate
> > Andrew/Hugh and Paolo/Sean can review and pick these patches. Any other
> > reviews are always welcome.
> > - 01: mm change, target for mm tree
> > - 02-09: KVM change, target for KVM tree
>
> A version with all of my feedback, plus reworked versions of Vishal's selftest,
> is available here:
>
> git@github.com:sean-jc/linux.git x86/upm_base_support
>
> It compiles and passes the selftest, but it's otherwise barely tested. There are
> a few todos (2 I think?) and many of the commits need changelogs, i.e. it's still
> a WIP.
>
> As for next steps, can you (handwaving all of the TDX folks) take a look at what
> I pushed and see if there's anything horrifically broken, and that it still works
> for TDX?
>
> Fuad (and pKVM folks) same ask for you with respect to pKVM. Absolutely no rush
> (and I mean that).

Thanks for sharing this. I've had a look at the patches, and have
ported them to work with pKVM. At a high level, the new interface
seems fine and it works with the arm64/pKVM port. I have a couple of
comments regarding some of the details, but they can wait until v11 is
posted.

Cheers,
/fuad

> On my side, the two things on my mind are (a) tests and (b) downstream dependencies
> (SEV and TDX). For tests, I want to build a lists of tests that are required for
> merging so that the criteria for merging are clear, and so that if the list is large
> (haven't thought much yet), the work of writing and running tests can be distributed.
>
> Regarding downstream dependencies, before this lands, I want to pull in all the
> TDX and SNP series and see how everything fits together. Specifically, I want to
> make sure that we don't end up with a uAPI that necessitates ugly code, and that we
> don't miss an opportunity to make things simpler. The patches in the SNP series to
> add "legacy" SEV support for UPM in particular made me slightly rethink some minor
> details. Nothing remotely major, but something that needs attention since it'll
> be uAPI.
>
> I'm off Monday, so it'll be at least Tuesday before I make any more progress on
> my side.
>
> Thanks!