Re: [PATCH 1/7] KVM: TDX: Return -EBUSY when tdh_mem_page_add() encounters TDX_OPERAND_BUSY

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

On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 06:24:34AM +0800, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> On Mon, 2025-01-13 at 10:10 +0800, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c
> > index d0dc3200fa37..1cf3ef0faff7 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c
> > @@ -3024,13 +3024,11 @@ static int tdx_gmem_post_populate(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t gfn, kvm_pfn_t pfn,
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	ret = 0;
> > -	do {
> > -		err = tdh_mem_page_add(kvm_tdx->tdr_pa, gpa, pfn_to_hpa(pfn),
> > -				       pfn_to_hpa(page_to_pfn(page)),
> > -				       &entry, &level_state);
> > -	} while (err == TDX_ERROR_SEPT_BUSY);
> > +	err = tdh_mem_page_add(kvm_tdx->tdr_pa, gpa, pfn_to_hpa(pfn),
> > +			       pfn_to_hpa(page_to_pfn(page)),
> > +			       &entry, &level_state);
> >  	if (err) {
> > -		ret = -EIO;
> > +		ret = unlikely(err & TDX_OPERAND_BUSY) ? -EBUSY : -EIO;
> >  		goto out;
> >  	}
> 
> Should we just squash this into "KVM: TDX: Add an ioctl to create initial guest
> memory"? I guess we get a little more specific log history on this corner as a
> separate patch, but seems strange to add and remove a loop before it even can
> get exercised.
No problem to me.