From: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Kiryl Shutsemau <kas@kernel.org>,
Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
<x86@kernel.org>, <linux-coco@lists.linux.dev>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com>,
Binbin Wu <binbin.wu@linux.intel.com>,
Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: VMX: Explicitly track TDX VMs' root level instead of guessing it from CPUID
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2026 11:16:50 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aoZxoiFUqY0eu0ei@yzhao56-desk.sh.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260814224509.2342760-1-seanjc@google.com>
On Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 03:45:09PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Explicitly track the root level for TDX VMs instead of trying to infer the
> depth of the paging tree based on an individual vCPU's CPUID information.
> Applying KVM's existing logic to select the root level to TDX is flawed as
> nothing *requires* userspace to fill in the correct guest.MAXPHYADDR for a
> vCPU's CPUID. Guessing at the correct root level is also ridiculous given
> that userspace has already told KVM the root level during TD initialization.
>
> Relying on userspace to set the expected/correct CPUID lets a misbehaving
> userspace trip the KVM_BUG_ON() in tdx_load_mmu_pgd() by configuring guest
> CPUID to use an "incorrect" guest.MAXPHYADDR.
>
> Keep gfn_direct_bits even though it can be trivially derived from
> mirror_root_level as saving a whole eight bytes per VM is meaningless, and
> the value is queried fairly often and in hot paths.
>
> Cc: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
> Cc: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com>
> Cc: Binbin Wu <binbin.wu@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com>
> Cc: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>
> Fixes: 20d913729c11 ("KVM: x86/mmu: Taking guest pa into consideration when calculate tdp level")
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
> ---
>
> Compile-tested only, and found by inspection, i.e. I haven't proven that this
> works, or that there's actually a bug. But I'm pretty sure there's a bug.
I have verified this issue via a modified KVM selftest, where I set
init_vm->cpuid and vcpu->cpuid to have different maxpa values.
The warning can be successfully triggered:
...
[15466.362189] WARNING: arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c:1629 at tdx_load_mmu_pgd+0x6b/0xcf [kvm_intel], CPU#109: tdx_vm_test/42260
...
So, Tested-by: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>
> static inline int kvm_mmu_get_tdp_level(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> - int maxpa;
> -
> - if (vcpu->kvm->arch.vm_type == KVM_X86_TDX_VM)
> - maxpa = cpuid_query_maxguestphyaddr(vcpu);
> - else
> - maxpa = cpuid_maxphyaddr(vcpu);
> -
> /* tdp_root_level is architecture forced level, use it if nonzero */
> if (tdp_root_level)
> return tdp_root_level;
>
> + /*
> + * If the VM has mirror roots, then the root level is fixed as the gfn
> + * used to select between the normal and mirror root must be covered.
> + */
> + if (vcpu->kvm->arch.mirror_root_level)
> + return vcpu->kvm->arch.mirror_root_level;
Also comment TDX module should have ensured
kvm->arch.mirror_root_level <= max_tdp_level?
> /* Use 5-level TDP if and only if it's useful/necessary. */
> - if (max_tdp_level == 5 && maxpa <= 48)
> + if (max_tdp_level == 5 && cpuid_maxphyaddr(vcpu) <= 48)
> return 4;
>
> return max_tdp_level;
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-20 3:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-14 22:45 [PATCH] KVM: VMX: Explicitly track TDX VMs' root level instead of guessing it from CPUID Sean Christopherson
2026-08-19 0:53 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2026-08-19 0:59 ` Sean Christopherson
2026-08-19 14:35 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2026-08-19 15:56 ` Sean Christopherson
2026-08-19 17:35 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2026-08-19 18:45 ` Sean Christopherson
2026-08-19 18:56 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2026-08-19 19:41 ` Sean Christopherson
2026-08-19 22:36 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2026-08-20 3:16 ` Yan Zhao [this message]
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=aoZxoiFUqY0eu0ei@yzhao56-desk.sh.intel.com \
--to=yan.y.zhao@intel.com \
--cc=binbin.wu@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=kai.huang@intel.com \
--cc=kas@kernel.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-coco@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).