From: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com>
To: "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
"Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
"bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>,
"kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com"
<kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: "ashish.kalra@amd.com" <ashish.kalra@amd.com>,
"dyoung@redhat.com" <dyoung@redhat.com>,
"thomas.lendacky@amd.com" <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"seanjc@google.com" <seanjc@google.com>,
"dwmw@amazon.co.uk" <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>,
"pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"bhe@redhat.com" <bhe@redhat.com>,
"Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>,
"nik.borisov@suse.com" <nik.borisov@suse.com>,
"Chatre, Reinette" <reinette.chatre@intel.com>,
"hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"sagis@google.com" <sagis@google.com>,
"david.kaplan@amd.com" <david.kaplan@amd.com>,
"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/5] x86/kexec: Do unconditional WBINVD for bare-metal in relocate_kernel()
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 09:44:53 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <40b14084af8a35af4e07fbd394821f92d0973d32.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1050a84caa9036e3ddb580fb510e634a216e692c.camel@intel.com>
On Thu, 2025-03-13 at 23:17 +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> On Thu, 2025-03-13 at 00:34 +1300, Kai Huang wrote:
> > For both SME and TDX, dirty cachelines with and without the encryption
> > bit(s) of the same physical memory address can coexist and the CPU can
> > flush them back to memory in random order.
> >
>
> A lot going on in this sentence, how about simplifying it:
>
> For SME and TDX, multiple dirty cachelines for the same memory can co-exist, and
> the CPU can flush them back to memory in a random order.
"multiple" isn't accurate at least for SME. How about:
For SME and TDX, dirty cachelines with and without encryption bit(s) of
the same memory can coexist, and the CPU can flush them back to memory
in random order.
>
>
> > During kexec, the caches
> > must be flushed before jumping to the new kernel to avoid silent memory
> > corruption to the new kernel.
>
> During kexec, the caches must be flushed before jumping to the new kernel to
> avoid silent memory corruption when a cacheline with a different encryption
> property is written back over whatever encryption properties the new kernel is
> using.
>
> ...it distributes some of the details from the first sentence into the second.
> Easier to read or no? I'm not sure.
I don't have opinion. I see no difference.
I tends to keep the original words since people have reviewed.
>
> >
> > The WBINVD in stop_this_cpu() flushes caches for all remote CPUs when
> > they are being stopped. For SME, the WBINVD in relocate_kernel()
> > flushes the cache for the last running CPU (which is doing kexec).
> >
> > Similarly, to support kexec for TDX host, after stopping all remote CPUs
> > with cache flushed, the kernel needs to flush cache for the last running
> > CPU.
>
>
> I mentioned this in a previous version. I think you need to give some hint to
> where you are going before you start listing facts. Like:
>
> During kexec, WBINVD needs to be executed on each CPU for TDX and SME.
>
> On the
> remote CPUs this is covered in stop_this_cpu() for both TDX and SME. For the
> kexecing CPU, SME handles this in relocate_kernel(). This leaves the TDX case
> for the kexec-ing CPU still to implement.
>
> ...it first says the overall problem to solve, then explains what is missing in
> the current code to solve it. The reader is already thinking of what the
> solutions should be and...
Will do.
>
> >
> > Use the existing WBINVD in relocate_kernel() to cover TDX host as well.
>
> ...they read the solution just as they are wondering about it. The reader can
> feel like the change is aligned with their thinking.
>
> >
> > Just do unconditional
> >
>
> "Unconditional". Now I'm starting to think about how unconditional wbinvd will
> be.
>
> > WBINVD to cover both SME and TDX instead of
> > sprinkling additional vendor-specific checks. Kexec is a slow path, and
> > the additional WBINVD is acceptable for the sake of simplicity and
> > maintainability.
> >
> > But only do WBINVD for bare-metal
> >
>
> But wait, now I'm learning it's not unconditional. I need to re-think what I
> just evaluated. And I'm doubting the earlier statements because I just got
> surprised.
Do you mean you got surprised by saying "unconditional" first and then saying
"for bare-metal"? This is literally what the patch title says. I don't see any
problem, but I can mentioned the "for bare-metal" part when I say
"unconditional" above.
>
> > because TDX guests and SEV-ES/SEV-SNP
> > guests will get unexpected (and yet unnecessary) exception (#VE or #VC)
> > which the kernel is unable to handle at the time of relocate_kernel()
> > since the kernel has torn down the IDT.
> >
> > Remove the host_mem_enc_active local variable and directly use
> > !cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR) as an argument of calling
> > relocate_kernel().
> >
>
> Start with the problem here. It just describes another change and I'm not sure
> why when I start reading it.
>
> By problem I mean that host_mem_enc_active doesn't fit the conditional anymore,
> so it needs to be changed.
>
> > cpu_feature_enabled() is always inline but not a
>
> I was just noticing this on the other patch. Actually it could call into some
> kasan stuff.
Can you be more specific since I am not seeing it.
>
> > function call, thus it is safe to use after load_segments() when call
> > depth tracking is enabled.
>
> This function call tracking stuff is a wild card at the end. What about
> describing the rules this function needs to follow due to call depth tracking,
> and explain why the change does that.
Below is what I had before. Do you think it's better? I replaced them with the
current one since Reinette commented the original one (which contains history
etc) was not necessary.
"
Commit 93c1800b3799 ("x86/kexec: Fix bug with call depth tracking")
moved calling 'cc_platform_has(CC_ATTR_HOST_MEM_ENCRYPT)' as an argument
of relocate_kernel() to an earlier place before load_segments() by
adding a variable 'host_mem_enc_active'. The reason was the call to
cc_platform_has() after load_segments() caused a fault and system crash
when call depth tracking is active because load_segments() resets GS to
0 but call depth tracking uses per-CPU variable to operate.
Use !cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR) to check whether the
kernel runs on bare-metal. cpu_feature_enabled() is always inline but
not a function call, thus it is safe to use it after load_segments()
when call depth tracking is enabled. Remove the 'host_mem_enc_active'
variable and use cpu_feature_enabled() directly as the argument when
calling relocate_kernel().
"
[...]
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/machine_kexec_64.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/machine_kexec_64.c
> > @@ -346,16 +346,9 @@ void __nocfi machine_kexec(struct kimage *image)
> > {
> > unsigned long reloc_start = (unsigned long)__relocate_kernel_start;
> > relocate_kernel_fn *relocate_kernel_ptr;
> > - unsigned int host_mem_enc_active;
> > int save_ftrace_enabled;
> > void *control_page;
> >
> > - /*
> > - * This must be done before load_segments() since if call depth tracking
> > - * is used then GS must be valid to make any function calls.
> > - */
> > - host_mem_enc_active = cc_platform_has(CC_ATTR_HOST_MEM_ENCRYPT);
> > -
> > #ifdef CONFIG_KEXEC_JUMP
> > if (image->preserve_context)
> > save_processor_state();
> > @@ -398,6 +391,11 @@ void __nocfi machine_kexec(struct kimage *image)
> > *
> > * I take advantage of this here by force loading the
> > * segments, before I zap the gdt with an invalid value.
> > + *
> > + * load_segments() resets GS to 0. Don't make any function call
> > + * after here since call depth tracking uses per-CPU variables to
> > + * operate (relocate_kernel() is explicitly ignored by call depth
> > + * tracking).
>
> I think I suggested you should call out the opportunistic change here in the
> log. Did you disagree?
I replied this was suggested by David Kaplan, but I guess I forgot to reply the
"opportunistic" part.
I don't think this is opportunistic change. It's a valid comment after the
'host_mem_enc_active' variable and the comment around it were removed.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-03-14 9:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-03-12 11:34 [RFC PATCH 0/5] TDX host: kexec/kdump support Kai Huang
2025-03-12 11:34 ` [RFC PATCH 1/5] x86/kexec: Do unconditional WBINVD for bare-metal in stop_this_cpu() Kai Huang
2025-03-13 18:40 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2025-03-14 10:03 ` Huang, Kai
2025-03-14 15:11 ` Tom Lendacky
2025-03-14 16:28 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2025-03-14 18:18 ` Tom Lendacky
2025-03-14 18:57 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2025-03-17 10:11 ` Huang, Kai
2025-03-18 3:41 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2025-03-20 0:03 ` Huang, Kai
2025-03-17 12:52 ` kirill.shutemov
2025-03-17 21:59 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2025-03-19 16:41 ` Dave Hansen
2025-03-19 17:03 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2025-03-19 21:42 ` Huang, Kai
2025-03-12 11:34 ` [RFC PATCH 2/5] x86/kexec: Do unconditional WBINVD for bare-metal in relocate_kernel() Kai Huang
2025-03-13 23:17 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2025-03-14 9:44 ` Huang, Kai [this message]
2025-03-18 3:54 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2025-03-19 9:57 ` Huang, Kai
2025-03-19 16:20 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2025-03-12 11:34 ` [RFC PATCH 3/5] x86/kexec: Disable kexec/kdump on platforms with TDX partial write erratum Kai Huang
2025-03-12 23:27 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2025-03-13 0:57 ` Huang, Kai
2025-03-13 17:18 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2025-03-13 22:32 ` Huang, Kai
2025-03-13 22:47 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2025-03-13 23:57 ` Huang, Kai
2025-03-14 19:03 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2025-03-17 1:19 ` Huang, Kai
2025-03-17 23:53 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2025-03-12 11:34 ` [RFC PATCH 4/5] x86/virt/tdx: Remove the !KEXEC_CORE dependency Kai Huang
2025-03-12 11:34 ` [RFC PATCH 5/5] x86/virt/tdx: Update the kexec section in the TDX documentation Kai Huang
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=40b14084af8a35af4e07fbd394821f92d0973d32.camel@intel.com \
--to=kai.huang@intel.com \
--cc=ashish.kalra@amd.com \
--cc=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=david.kaplan@amd.com \
--cc=dwmw@amazon.co.uk \
--cc=dyoung@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=isaku.yamahata@intel.com \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=nik.borisov@suse.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=reinette.chatre@intel.com \
--cc=rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com \
--cc=sagis@google.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®