Re: [RFC PATCH v2 14/23] KVM: TDX: Split and inhibit huge mappings if a VMExit carries level info

["Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com>]

On Fri, 2025-11-14 at 09:42 +0800, Yan Zhao wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 06:55:45PM +0800, Huang, Kai wrote:
> > On Thu, 2025-08-07 at 17:44 +0800, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > > @@ -2044,6 +2091,9 @@ static int tdx_handle_ept_violation(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > >  		 */
> > >  		exit_qual = EPT_VIOLATION_ACC_WRITE;
> > >  
> > > +		if (tdx_check_accept_level(vcpu, gpa_to_gfn(gpa)))
> > > +			return RET_PF_RETRY;
> > > +
> > 
> > I don't think you should return RET_PF_RETRY here.
> > 
> > This is still at very early stage of EPT violation.  The caller of
> > tdx_handle_ept_violation() is expecting either 0, 1, or negative error code.
> Hmm, strictly speaking, the caller of the EPT violation handler is expecting
> 0, >0, or negative error code.
> 
> vcpu_run
>   |->r = vcpu_enter_guest(vcpu);
>   |        |->r = kvm_x86_call(handle_exit)(vcpu, exit_fastpath);
>   |        |  return r;
>   |  if (r <= 0)
>   |     break;
> 
> handle_ept_violation
>   |->return __vmx_handle_ept_violation(vcpu, gpa, exit_qualification);
> 
> tdx_handle_ept_violation
>  |->ret = __vmx_handle_ept_violation(vcpu, gpa, exit_qual); 
>  |  return ret;
> 
> The current VMX/TDX's EPT violation handlers returns RET_PF_* to the caller
> since commit 7c5480386300 ("KVM: x86/mmu: Return RET_PF* instead of 1 in
> kvm_mmu_page_fault") for the sake of zero-step mitigation.
> 
> This is no problem, because
> 
> enum {
>         RET_PF_CONTINUE = 0,
>         RET_PF_RETRY,
>         RET_PF_EMULATE,
>         RET_PF_WRITE_PROTECTED,
>         RET_PF_INVALID,
>         RET_PF_FIXED,
>         RET_PF_SPURIOUS,
> };
> 
> /*
>  * Define RET_PF_CONTINUE as 0 to allow for
>  * - efficient machine code when checking for CONTINUE, e.g.
>  *   "TEST %rax, %rax, JNZ", as all "stop!" values are non-zero,
>  * - kvm_mmu_do_page_fault() to return other RET_PF_* as a positive value.
>  */
> static_assert(RET_PF_CONTINUE == 0);

Ah, OK.

But this makes KVM retry fault, when kvm_split_cross_boundary_leafs() fails, due
to -ENOMEM, presumably.  While in the normal page fault handler path, -ENOMEM
will just return to userspace AFAICT.

This is not consistent, but I guess nobody cares, or noticed.