Re: [PATCH v3 24/25] KVM: TDX: Guard VM state transitions with "all" the locks

[Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 09:57:20AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2025, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 05:32:42PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > We may have missed a zap in the guest_memfd punch hole path:
> > 
> > The SEAMCALLs tdh_mem_range_block(), tdh_mem_track() tdh_mem_page_remove()
> > in the guest_memfd punch hole path are only protected by the filemap invaliate
> > lock and mmu_lock, so they could contend with v1 version of tdh_vp_init().
> >
> > (I'm writing a selftest to verify this, haven't been able to reproduce
> > tdh_vp_init(v1) returning BUSY yet. However, this race condition should be
> > theoretically possible.)
> > 
> > Resources              SHARED  users              EXCLUSIVE users
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > (1) TDR                tdh_mng_rdwr               tdh_mng_create
> >                        tdh_vp_create              tdh_mng_add_cx
> >                        tdh_vp_addcx               tdh_mng_init
> >                        tdh_vp_init(v0)            tdh_mng_vpflushdone
> >                        tdh_vp_enter               tdh_mng_key_config
> >                        tdh_vp_flush               tdh_mng_key_freeid
> >                        tdh_vp_rd_wr               tdh_mr_extend
> >                        tdh_mem_sept_add           tdh_mr_finalize
> >                        tdh_mem_sept_remove        tdh_vp_init(v1)
> >                        tdh_mem_page_aug           tdh_mem_page_add
> >                        tdh_mem_page_remove
> >                        tdh_mem_range_block
> >                        tdh_mem_track
> >                        tdh_mem_range_unblock
> >                        tdh_phymem_page_reclaim
> > 
> > Do you think we can acquire the mmu_lock for cmd KVM_TDX_INIT_VCPU?
> 
> Ugh, I'd rather not?  Refresh me, what's the story with "v1"?  Are we now on v2?
No... We are now on v1.
As in [1], I found that TDX module changed SEAMCALL TDH_VP_INIT behavior to
require exclusive lock on resource TDR when leaf_opcode.version > 0.

Therefore, we moved KVM_TDX_INIT_VCPU to tdx_vcpu_unlocked_ioctl() in patch 22.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/aLa34QCJCXGLk%2Ffl@yzhao56-desk.sh.intel.com/

> If this is effectively limited to deprecated TDX modules, my vote would be to
> ignore the flaw and avoid even more complexity in KVM.
Conversely, the new TDX module has this flaw...

> > > @@ -3155,12 +3198,13 @@ int tdx_vcpu_unlocked_ioctl(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, void __user *argp)
> > >  	if (r)
> > >  		return r;
> > >  
> > > +	CLASS(tdx_vm_state_guard, guard)(kvm);
> > Should we move the guard to inside each cmd? Then there's no need to acquire the
> > locks in the default cases. 
> 
> No, I don't think it's a good tradeoff.  We'd also need to move vcpu_{load,put}()
> into the cmd helpers, and theoretically slowing down a bad ioctl invocation due
> to taking extra locks is a complete non-issue.
Fair enough.