Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] x86/tdx: Check for TDX partitioning during early TDX init

Kirill A. Shutemov
2023-12-06T22:54:28Z

On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 06:49:11PM +0100, Jeremi Piotrowski wrote:
> On 05/12/2023 11:54, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 08:07:38PM +0100, Jeremi Piotrowski wrote:
> >> On 04/12/2023 10:17, Reshetova, Elena wrote:
> >>>> Check for additional CPUID bits to identify TDX guests running with Trust
> >>>> Domain (TD) partitioning enabled. TD partitioning is like nested virtualization
> >>>> inside the Trust Domain so there is a L1 TD VM(M) and there can be L2 TD VM(s).
> >>>>
> >>>> In this arrangement we are not guaranteed that the TDX_CPUID_LEAF_ID is
> >>>> visible
> >>>> to Linux running as an L2 TD VM. This is because a majority of TDX facilities
> >>>> are controlled by the L1 VMM and the L2 TDX guest needs to use TD partitioning
> >>>> aware mechanisms for what's left. So currently such guests do not have
> >>>> X86_FEATURE_TDX_GUEST set.
> >>>
> >>> Back to this concrete patch. Why cannot L1 VMM emulate the correct value of
> >>> the TDX_CPUID_LEAF_ID to L2 VM? It can do this per TDX partitioning arch.
> >>> How do you handle this and other CPUID calls call currently in L1? Per spec,
> >>> all CPUIDs calls from L2 will cause L2 --> L1 exit, so what do you do in L1?
> >> The disclaimer here is that I don't have access to the paravisor (L1) code. But
> >> to the best of my knowledge the L1 handles CPUID calls by calling into the TDX
> >> module, or synthesizing a response itself. TDX_CPUID_LEAF_ID is not provided to
> >> the L2 guest in order to discriminate a guest that is solely responsible for every
> >> TDX mechanism (running at L1) from one running at L2 that has to cooperate with L1.
> >> More below.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Given that you do that simple emulation, you already end up with TDX guest
> >>> code being activated. Next you can check what features you wont be able to
> >>> provide in L1 and create simple emulation calls for the TDG calls that must be
> >>> supported and cannot return error. The biggest TDG call (TDVMCALL) is already
> >>> direct call into L0 VMM, so this part doesn’t require L1 VMM support.
> >>
> >> I don't see anything in the TD-partitioning spec that gives the TDX guest a way
> >> to detect if it's running at L2 or L1, or check whether TDVMCALLs go to L0/L1.
> >> So in any case this requires an extra cpuid call to establish the environment.
> >> Given that, exposing TDX_CPUID_LEAF_ID to the guest doesn't help.
> >>
> >> I'll give some examples of where the idea of emulating a TDX environment
> >> without attempting L1-L2 cooperation breaks down.
> >>
> >> hlt: if the guest issues a hlt TDVMCALL it goes to L0, but if it issues a classic hlt
> >> it traps to L1. The hlt should definitely go to L1 so that L1 has a chance to do
> >> housekeeping.
> >
> > Why would L2 issue HLT TDVMCALL? It only happens in response to #VE, but
> > if partitioning enabled #VEs are routed to L1 anyway.
>
> What about tdx_safe_halt? When X86_FEATURE_TDX_GUEST is defined I see
> "using TDX aware idle routing" in dmesg.

Yeah. I forgot about this one. My bad. :/

I think it makes a case for more fine-grained control on where TDVMCALL
routed: to L1 or to L0. I think TDX module can do that.

BTW, what kind of housekeeping do you do in L1 for HLT case?

> >> map gpa: say the guest uses MAP_GPA TDVMCALL. This goes to L0, not L1 which is the actual
> >> entity that needs to have a say in performing the conversion. L1 can't act on the request
> >> if L0 would forward it because of the CoCo threat model. So L1 and L2 get out of sync.
> >> The only safe approach is for L2 to use a different mechanism to trap to L1 explicitly.
> >
> > Hm? L1 is always in loop on share<->private conversion. I don't know why
> > you need MAP_GPA for that.
> >
> > You can't rely on MAP_GPA anyway. It is optional (unfortunately). Conversion
> > doesn't require MAP_GPA call.
> >
>
> I'm sorry, I don't quite follow. I'm reading tdx_enc_status_changed():
> - TDVMCALL_MAP_GPA is issued for all transitions
> - TDX_ACCEPT_PAGE is issued for shared->private transitions

I am talking about TDX architecture. It doesn't require MAP_GPA call.
Just setting shared bit and touching the page will do the conversion.
MAP_GPA is "being nice" on the guest behalf.

Linux do MAP_GPA all the time. Or tries to. I had bug where I converted
page by mistake this way. It was pain to debug.

My point is that if you *must* catch all conversions in L1, MAP_GPA is not
reliable way.

> This doesn't work in partitioning when TDVMCALLs go to L0: TDVMCALL_MAP_GPA bypasses
> L1 and TDX_ACCEPT_PAGE is L1 responsibility.
>
> If you want to see how this is currently supported take a look at arch/x86/hyperv/ivm.c.
> All memory starts as private and there is a hypercall to notify the paravisor for both
> TDX (when partitioning) and SNP (when VMPL). This guarantees that all page conversions
> go through L1.

But L1 guest control anyway during page conversion and it has to manage
aliases with TDG.MEM.PAGE.ATTR.RD/WR. Why do you need MAP_GPA for that?

> >> Having a paravisor is required to support a TPM and having TDVMCALLs go to L0 is
> >> required to make performance viable for real workloads.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Until we really see what breaks with this approach, I don’t think it is worth to
> >>> take in the complexity to support different L1 hypervisors view on partitioning.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I'm not asking to support different L1 hypervisors view on partitioning, I want to
> >> clean up the code (by fixing assumptions that no longer hold) for the model that I'm
> >> describing that: the kernel already supports, has an implementation that works and
> >> has actual users. This is also a model that Intel intentionally created the TD-partitioning
> >> spec to support.
> >>
> >> So lets work together to make X86_FEATURE_TDX_GUEST match reality.
> >
> > I think the right direction is to make TDX architecture good enough
> > without that. If we need more hooks in TDX module that give required
> > control to L1, let's do that. (I don't see it so far)
> >
>
> I'm not the right person to propose changes to the TDX module, I barely know anything about
> TDX. The team that develops the paravisor collaborates with Intel on it and was also consulted
> in TD-partitioning design.

One possible change I mentioned above: make TDVMCALL exit to L1 for some
TDVMCALL leafs (or something along the line).

I would like to keep it transparent for enlightened TDX Linux guest. It
should not care if it runs as L1 or as L2 in your environment.

> I'm also not sure what kind of changes you envision. Everything is supported by the
> kernel already and the paravisor ABI is meant to stay vendor independent.
>
> What I'm trying to accomplish is better integration with the non-partitioning side of TDX
> so that users don't see "Memory Encryption Features active: AMD SEV" when running on Intel
> TDX with a paravisor.

This part is cosmetics and doesn't make much difference.

--
Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov