public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
To: Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com>
Cc: <pbonzini@redhat.com>, <seanjc@google.com>, <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	<rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>, <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>,
	<reinette.chatre@intel.com>, <binbin.wu@linux.intel.com>,
	<xiaoyao.li@intel.com>, <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>,
	<adrian.hunter@intel.com>, <tony.lindgren@intel.com>,
	<kristen@linux.intel.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] KVM: VMX: Initialize TDX during KVM module load
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2024 14:22:39 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZzrdL5iSu7/DNoBG@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <162f9dee05c729203b9ad6688db1ca2960b4b502.1731664295.git.kai.huang@intel.com>

>+static int tdx_online_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
>+{
>+	unsigned long flags;
>+	int r;
>+
>+	/* Sanity check CPU is already in post-VMXON */
>+	WARN_ON_ONCE(!(cr4_read_shadow() & X86_CR4_VMXE));
>+
>+	local_irq_save(flags);
>+	r = tdx_cpu_enable();
>+	local_irq_restore(flags);

The comment above tdx_cpu_enable() is outdated because now it may be called
from CPU hotplug rather than IPI function calls only.

Can we relax the assertion lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled() in tdx_cpu_enable()?
looks the requirement is just the enabling work won't be migrated and done to
another CPU.

>+
>+	return r;
>+}
>+
>+static void __do_tdx_cleanup(void)
>+{
>+	/*
>+	 * Once TDX module is initialized, it cannot be disabled and
>+	 * re-initialized again w/o runtime update (which isn't
>+	 * supported by kernel).  Only need to remove the cpuhp here.
>+	 * The TDX host core code tracks TDX status and can handle
>+	 * 'multiple enabling' scenario.
>+	 */
>+	WARN_ON_ONCE(!tdx_cpuhp_state);
>+	cpuhp_remove_state_nocalls(tdx_cpuhp_state);

...

>+	tdx_cpuhp_state = 0;
>+}
>+
>+static int __init __do_tdx_bringup(void)
>+{
>+	int r;
>+
>+	/*
>+	 * TDX-specific cpuhp callback to call tdx_cpu_enable() on all
>+	 * online CPUs before calling tdx_enable(), and on any new
>+	 * going-online CPU to make sure it is ready for TDX guest.
>+	 */
>+	r = cpuhp_setup_state_cpuslocked(CPUHP_AP_ONLINE_DYN,
>+					 "kvm/cpu/tdx:online",
>+					 tdx_online_cpu, NULL);
>+	if (r < 0)
>+		return r;
>+
>+	tdx_cpuhp_state = r;
>+
>+	r = tdx_enable();
>+	if (r)
>+		__do_tdx_cleanup();

this calls cpuhp_remove_state_nocalls(), which acquires cpu locks again,
causing a potential deadlock IIUC.

>+
>+	return r;
>+}
>+
>+static bool __init kvm_can_support_tdx(void)

I think "static __init bool" is the preferred order. see

https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/coding-style.html#function-prototypes

>+{
>+	return cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_TDX_HOST_PLATFORM);
>+}
>+
>+static int __init __tdx_bringup(void)
>+{
>+	int r;
>+
>+	/*
>+	 * Enabling TDX requires enabling hardware virtualization first,
>+	 * as making SEAMCALLs requires CPU being in post-VMXON state.
>+	 */
>+	r = kvm_enable_virtualization();
>+	if (r)
>+		return r;
>+
>+	cpus_read_lock();
>+	r = __do_tdx_bringup();
>+	cpus_read_unlock();
>+
>+	if (r)
>+		goto tdx_bringup_err;
>+
>+	/*
>+	 * Leave hardware virtualization enabled after TDX is enabled
>+	 * successfully.  TDX CPU hotplug depends on this.
>+	 */

Shouldn't we make enable_tdx dependent on enable_virt_at_load? Otherwise, if
someone sets enable_tdx=1 and enable_virt_at_load=0, they will get hardware
virtualization enabled at load time while enable_virt_at_load still shows 0.
This behavior is a bit confusing to me.

I think a check against enable_virt_at_load in kvm_can_support_tdx() will work.

The call of kvm_enable_virtualization() here effectively moves
kvm_init_virtualization() out of kvm_init() when enable_tdx=1. I wonder if it
makes more sense to refactor out kvm_init_virtualization() for non-TDX cases
as well, i.e.,

  vmx_init();
  kvm_init_virtualization();
  tdx_init();
  kvm_init();

I'm not sure if this was ever discussed. To me, this approach is better because
TDX code needn't handle virtualization enabling stuff. It can simply check that
enable_virt_at_load=1, assume virtualization is enabled and needn't disable
virtualization on errors.

A bonus is that on non-TDX-capable systems, hardware virtualization won't be
toggled twice at KVM load time for no good reason.

>+	return 0;
>+tdx_bringup_err:
>+	kvm_disable_virtualization();
>+	return r;
>+}

  reply	other threads:[~2024-11-18  6:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-11-15  9:52 [PATCH v2 0/3] KVM: VMX: Initialize TDX when loading KVM module Kai Huang
2024-11-15  9:52 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] KVM: VMX: Refactor VMX module init/exit functions Kai Huang
2024-11-15  9:52 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] KVM: Export hardware virtualization enabling/disabling functions Kai Huang
2024-11-15  9:52 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] KVM: VMX: Initialize TDX during KVM module load Kai Huang
2024-11-18  6:22   ` Chao Gao [this message]
2024-11-20 23:38     ` Huang, Kai
2024-11-21  0:28       ` Huang, Kai

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=ZzrdL5iSu7/DNoBG@intel.com \
    --to=chao.gao@intel.com \
    --cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
    --cc=binbin.wu@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=isaku.yamahata@intel.com \
    --cc=kai.huang@intel.com \
    --cc=kristen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=reinette.chatre@intel.com \
    --cc=rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com \
    --cc=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=tony.lindgren@intel.com \
    --cc=xiaoyao.li@intel.com \
    --cc=yan.y.zhao@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