Re: [PATCH v19 108/130] KVM: TDX: Handle TDX PV HLT hypercall

Sean Christopherson
2024-04-03T14:49:30Z

On Wed, Apr 03, 2024, Chao Gao wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 12:26:50AM -0800, isaku.yamahata@intel.com wrote:
> >From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
> >
> >Wire up TDX PV HLT hypercall to the KVM backend function.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
> >---
> >v19:
> >- move tdvps_state_non_arch_check() to this patch
> >
> >v18:
> >- drop buggy_hlt_workaround and use TDH.VP.RD(TD_VCPU_STATE_DETAILS)
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
> >---
> > arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.h | 4 ++++
> > 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c
> >index eb68d6c148b6..a2caf2ae838c 100644
> >--- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c
> >+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c
> >@@ -688,7 +688,18 @@ void tdx_vcpu_load(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
> >
> > bool tdx_protected_apic_has_interrupt(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > {
> >- return pi_has_pending_interrupt(vcpu);
> >+ bool ret = pi_has_pending_interrupt(vcpu);
>
> Maybe
> bool has_pending_interrupt = pi_has_pending_interrupt(vcpu);
>
> "ret" isn't a good name. or even call pi_has_pending_interrupt() directly in
> the if statement below.

Ya, or split the if-statement into multiple chucks, with comments explaining
what each non-intuitive chunk is doing. The pi_has_pending_interrupt(vcpu) check
is self-explanatory, the halted thing, not so much. They are terminal statements,
there's zero reason to pre-check the PID.

E.g.

/*
* Comment explaining why KVM needs to assume a non-halted vCPU has a
* pending interrupt (KVM can't see RFLAGS.IF).
*/
if (vcpu->arch.mp_state != KVM_MP_STATE_HALTED)
return true;

if (pi_has_pending_interrupt(vcpu))
return;

> >+ union tdx_vcpu_state_details details;
> >+ struct vcpu_tdx *tdx = to_tdx(vcpu);
> >+
> >+ if (ret || vcpu->arch.mp_state != KVM_MP_STATE_HALTED)
> >+ return true;
>
> Question: why mp_state matters here?
> >+
> >+ if (tdx->interrupt_disabled_hlt)
> >+ return false;
>
> Shouldn't we move this into vt_interrupt_allowed()? VMX calls the function to
> check if interrupt is disabled. KVM can clear tdx->interrupt_disabled_hlt on
> every TD-enter and set it only on TD-exit due to the guest making a
> TDVMCALL(hlt) w/ interrupt disabled.

I'm pretty sure interrupt_disabled_hlt shouldn't exist, should "a0", a.k.a. r12,
be preserved at this point?

/* Another comment explaning magic code. */
if (to_vmx(vcpu)->exit_reason.basic == EXIT_REASON_HLT &&
tdvmcall_a0_read(vcpu))
return false;

Actually, can't this all be:

if (to_vmx(vcpu)->exit_reason.basic != EXIT_REASON_HLT)
return true;

if (!tdvmcall_a0_read(vcpu))
return false;

if (pi_has_pending_interrupt(vcpu))
return true;

return tdx_has_pending_virtual_interrupt(vcpu);