[PATCH v11 050/113] KVM: x86/tdp_mmu: Ignore unsupported mmu operation on private GFNs

isaku.yamahata@intel.com posted 113 patches 2 years, 8 months ago
There is a newer version of this series
[PATCH v11 050/113] KVM: x86/tdp_mmu: Ignore unsupported mmu operation on private GFNs
Posted by isaku.yamahata@intel.com 2 years, 8 months ago
From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>

Some KVM MMU operations (dirty page logging, page migration, aging page)
aren't supported for private GFNs (yet) with the first generation of TDX.
Silently return on unsupported TDX KVM MMU operations.

Signed-off-by: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
---
 arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c     |  3 +++
 arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
 arch/x86/kvm/x86.c         |  3 +++
 3 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
index 484e615196aa..ad0482a101a3 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
@@ -6635,6 +6635,9 @@ static bool kvm_mmu_zap_collapsible_spte(struct kvm *kvm,
 	for_each_rmap_spte(rmap_head, &iter, sptep) {
 		sp = sptep_to_sp(sptep);
 
+		/* Private page dirty logging is not supported yet. */
+		KVM_BUG_ON(is_private_sptep(sptep), kvm);
+
 		/*
 		 * We cannot do huge page mapping for indirect shadow pages,
 		 * which are found on the last rmap (level = 1) when not using
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
index 5ce0328c71df..69e202bd1897 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
@@ -1478,7 +1478,8 @@ typedef bool (*tdp_handler_t)(struct kvm *kvm, struct tdp_iter *iter,
 
 static __always_inline bool kvm_tdp_mmu_handle_gfn(struct kvm *kvm,
 						   struct kvm_gfn_range *range,
-						   tdp_handler_t handler)
+						   tdp_handler_t handler,
+						   bool only_shared)
 {
 	struct kvm_mmu_page *root;
 	struct tdp_iter iter;
@@ -1489,9 +1490,23 @@ static __always_inline bool kvm_tdp_mmu_handle_gfn(struct kvm *kvm,
 	 * into this helper allow blocking; it'd be dead, wasteful code.
 	 */
 	for_each_tdp_mmu_root(kvm, root, range->slot->as_id) {
+		gfn_t start;
+		gfn_t end;
+
+		if (only_shared && is_private_sp(root))
+			continue;
+
 		rcu_read_lock();
 
-		tdp_root_for_each_leaf_pte(iter, root, range->start, range->end)
+		/*
+		 * For TDX shared mapping, set GFN shared bit to the range,
+		 * so the handler() doesn't need to set it, to avoid duplicated
+		 * code in multiple handler()s.
+		 */
+		start = kvm_gfn_for_root(kvm, root, range->start);
+		end = kvm_gfn_for_root(kvm, root, range->end);
+
+		tdp_root_for_each_leaf_pte(iter, root, start, end)
 			ret |= handler(kvm, &iter, range);
 
 		rcu_read_unlock();
@@ -1535,7 +1550,12 @@ static bool age_gfn_range(struct kvm *kvm, struct tdp_iter *iter,
 
 bool kvm_tdp_mmu_age_gfn_range(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range)
 {
-	return kvm_tdp_mmu_handle_gfn(kvm, range, age_gfn_range);
+	/*
+	 * First TDX generation doesn't support clearing A bit for private
+	 * mapping, since there's no secure EPT API to support it.  However
+	 * it's a legitimate request for TDX guest.
+	 */
+	return kvm_tdp_mmu_handle_gfn(kvm, range, age_gfn_range, true);
 }
 
 static bool test_age_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct tdp_iter *iter,
@@ -1546,7 +1566,8 @@ static bool test_age_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct tdp_iter *iter,
 
 bool kvm_tdp_mmu_test_age_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range)
 {
-	return kvm_tdp_mmu_handle_gfn(kvm, range, test_age_gfn);
+	/* The first TDX generation doesn't support A bit. */
+	return kvm_tdp_mmu_handle_gfn(kvm, range, test_age_gfn, true);
 }
 
 static bool set_spte_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct tdp_iter *iter,
@@ -1591,8 +1612,11 @@ bool kvm_tdp_mmu_set_spte_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range)
 	 * No need to handle the remote TLB flush under RCU protection, the
 	 * target SPTE _must_ be a leaf SPTE, i.e. cannot result in freeing a
 	 * shadow page.  See the WARN on pfn_changed in __handle_changed_spte().
+	 *
+	 * .change_pte() callback should not happen for private page, because
+	 * for now TDX private pages are pinned during VM's life time.
 	 */
-	return kvm_tdp_mmu_handle_gfn(kvm, range, set_spte_gfn);
+	return kvm_tdp_mmu_handle_gfn(kvm, range, set_spte_gfn, true);
 }
 
 /*
@@ -1974,6 +1998,13 @@ void kvm_tdp_mmu_clear_dirty_pt_masked(struct kvm *kvm,
 	struct kvm_mmu_page *root;
 
 	lockdep_assert_held_write(&kvm->mmu_lock);
+	/*
+	 * First TDX generation doesn't support clearing dirty bit,
+	 * since there's no secure EPT API to support it.  For now silently
+	 * ignore KVM_CLEAR_DIRTY_LOG.
+	 */
+	if (!kvm_arch_dirty_log_supported(kvm))
+		return;
 	for_each_tdp_mmu_root(kvm, root, slot->as_id)
 		clear_dirty_pt_masked(kvm, root, gfn, mask, wrprot);
 }
@@ -2093,6 +2124,15 @@ bool kvm_tdp_mmu_write_protect_gfn(struct kvm *kvm,
 	bool spte_set = false;
 
 	lockdep_assert_held_write(&kvm->mmu_lock);
+
+	/*
+	 * First TDX generation doesn't support write protecting private
+	 * mappings, silently ignore the request.  KVM_GET_DIRTY_LOG etc
+	 * can reach here, no warning.
+	 */
+	if (!kvm_arch_dirty_log_supported(kvm))
+		return false;
+
 	for_each_tdp_mmu_root(kvm, root, slot->as_id)
 		spte_set |= write_protect_gfn(kvm, root, gfn, min_level);
 
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
index 5b4d5f8128a5..c4579e696d39 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
@@ -12526,6 +12526,9 @@ static void kvm_mmu_slot_apply_flags(struct kvm *kvm,
 	u32 new_flags = new ? new->flags : 0;
 	bool log_dirty_pages = new_flags & KVM_MEM_LOG_DIRTY_PAGES;
 
+	if (!kvm_arch_dirty_log_supported(kvm) && log_dirty_pages)
+		return;
+
 	/*
 	 * Update CPU dirty logging if dirty logging is being toggled.  This
 	 * applies to all operations.
-- 
2.25.1
Re: [PATCH v11 050/113] KVM: x86/tdp_mmu: Ignore unsupported mmu operation on private GFNs
Posted by Zhi Wang 2 years, 7 months ago
On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 08:31:58 -0800
isaku.yamahata@intel.com wrote:

> From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
> 
> Some KVM MMU operations (dirty page logging, page migration, aging page)
> aren't supported for private GFNs (yet) with the first generation of TDX.
> Silently return on unsupported TDX KVM MMU operations.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c     |  3 +++
>  arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>  arch/x86/kvm/x86.c         |  3 +++
>  3 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> index 484e615196aa..ad0482a101a3 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> @@ -6635,6 +6635,9 @@ static bool kvm_mmu_zap_collapsible_spte(struct kvm *kvm,
>  	for_each_rmap_spte(rmap_head, &iter, sptep) {
>  		sp = sptep_to_sp(sptep);
>  
> +		/* Private page dirty logging is not supported yet. */
> +		KVM_BUG_ON(is_private_sptep(sptep), kvm);
> +
>  		/*
>  		 * We cannot do huge page mapping for indirect shadow pages,
>  		 * which are found on the last rmap (level = 1) when not using
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
> index 5ce0328c71df..69e202bd1897 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
> @@ -1478,7 +1478,8 @@ typedef bool (*tdp_handler_t)(struct kvm *kvm, struct tdp_iter *iter,
>  
>  static __always_inline bool kvm_tdp_mmu_handle_gfn(struct kvm *kvm,
>  						   struct kvm_gfn_range *range,
> -						   tdp_handler_t handler)
> +						   tdp_handler_t handler,
> +						   bool only_shared)

What's the purpose of having only_shared while all the callers will set it as
true?

>  {
>  	struct kvm_mmu_page *root;
>  	struct tdp_iter iter;
> @@ -1489,9 +1490,23 @@ static __always_inline bool kvm_tdp_mmu_handle_gfn(struct kvm *kvm,
>  	 * into this helper allow blocking; it'd be dead, wasteful code.
>  	 */
>  	for_each_tdp_mmu_root(kvm, root, range->slot->as_id) {
> +		gfn_t start;
> +		gfn_t end;
> +
> +		if (only_shared && is_private_sp(root))
> +			continue;
> +
>  		rcu_read_lock();
>  
> -		tdp_root_for_each_leaf_pte(iter, root, range->start, range->end)
> +		/*
> +		 * For TDX shared mapping, set GFN shared bit to the range,
> +		 * so the handler() doesn't need to set it, to avoid duplicated
> +		 * code in multiple handler()s.
> +		 */
> +		start = kvm_gfn_for_root(kvm, root, range->start);
> +		end = kvm_gfn_for_root(kvm, root, range->end);
> +

The coco implementation tends to treat the SHARED bit / C bit as a page_prot,
an attribute, not a part of the GFN. From that prospective, the caller needs to
be aware if it is operating on the private memory or shared memory, so does
the handler. The page table walker should know the SHARED bit as a attribute.

I don't think it is a good idea to have two different understandings, which
will cause conversion and confusion.

> +		tdp_root_for_each_leaf_pte(iter, root, start, end)
>  			ret |= handler(kvm, &iter, range);
>  
>  		rcu_read_unlock();
> @@ -1535,7 +1550,12 @@ static bool age_gfn_range(struct kvm *kvm, struct tdp_iter *iter,
>  
>  bool kvm_tdp_mmu_age_gfn_range(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range)
>  {
> -	return kvm_tdp_mmu_handle_gfn(kvm, range, age_gfn_range);
> +	/*
> +	 * First TDX generation doesn't support clearing A bit for private
> +	 * mapping, since there's no secure EPT API to support it.  However
> +	 * it's a legitimate request for TDX guest.
> +	 */
> +	return kvm_tdp_mmu_handle_gfn(kvm, range, age_gfn_range, true);
>  }
>  
>  static bool test_age_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct tdp_iter *iter,
> @@ -1546,7 +1566,8 @@ static bool test_age_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct tdp_iter *iter,
>  
>  bool kvm_tdp_mmu_test_age_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range)
>  {
> -	return kvm_tdp_mmu_handle_gfn(kvm, range, test_age_gfn);
> +	/* The first TDX generation doesn't support A bit. */
> +	return kvm_tdp_mmu_handle_gfn(kvm, range, test_age_gfn, true);
>  }
>  
>  static bool set_spte_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct tdp_iter *iter,
> @@ -1591,8 +1612,11 @@ bool kvm_tdp_mmu_set_spte_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range)
>  	 * No need to handle the remote TLB flush under RCU protection, the
>  	 * target SPTE _must_ be a leaf SPTE, i.e. cannot result in freeing a
>  	 * shadow page.  See the WARN on pfn_changed in __handle_changed_spte().
> +	 *
> +	 * .change_pte() callback should not happen for private page, because
> +	 * for now TDX private pages are pinned during VM's life time.
>  	 */
> -	return kvm_tdp_mmu_handle_gfn(kvm, range, set_spte_gfn);
> +	return kvm_tdp_mmu_handle_gfn(kvm, range, set_spte_gfn, true);
>  }
>
If the mmu notifier callbacks will never operate on a private page, having a
WARN_ON() is better than silently letting it fade away.  

>  /*
> @@ -1974,6 +1998,13 @@ void kvm_tdp_mmu_clear_dirty_pt_masked(struct kvm *kvm,
>  	struct kvm_mmu_page *root;
>  
>  	lockdep_assert_held_write(&kvm->mmu_lock);
> +	/*
> +	 * First TDX generation doesn't support clearing dirty bit,
> +	 * since there's no secure EPT API to support it.  For now silently
> +	 * ignore KVM_CLEAR_DIRTY_LOG.
> +	 */
> +	if (!kvm_arch_dirty_log_supported(kvm))
> +		return;
>  	for_each_tdp_mmu_root(kvm, root, slot->as_id)
>  		clear_dirty_pt_masked(kvm, root, gfn, mask, wrprot);
>  }
> @@ -2093,6 +2124,15 @@ bool kvm_tdp_mmu_write_protect_gfn(struct kvm *kvm,
>  	bool spte_set = false;
>  
>  	lockdep_assert_held_write(&kvm->mmu_lock);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * First TDX generation doesn't support write protecting private
> +	 * mappings, silently ignore the request.  KVM_GET_DIRTY_LOG etc
> +	 * can reach here, no warning.
> +	 */
> +	if (!kvm_arch_dirty_log_supported(kvm))
> +		return false;
> +
>  	for_each_tdp_mmu_root(kvm, root, slot->as_id)
>  		spte_set |= write_protect_gfn(kvm, root, gfn, min_level);
> 

> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> index 5b4d5f8128a5..c4579e696d39 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -12526,6 +12526,9 @@ static void kvm_mmu_slot_apply_flags(struct kvm *kvm,
>  	u32 new_flags = new ? new->flags : 0;
>  	bool log_dirty_pages = new_flags & KVM_MEM_LOG_DIRTY_PAGES;
>  
> +	if (!kvm_arch_dirty_log_supported(kvm) && log_dirty_pages)
> +		return;
> +
>  	/*
>  	 * Update CPU dirty logging if dirty logging is being toggled.  This
>  	 * applies to all operations.
Re: [PATCH v11 050/113] KVM: x86/tdp_mmu: Ignore unsupported mmu operation on private GFNs
Posted by Isaku Yamahata 2 years, 6 months ago
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 10:27:47AM +0200,
Zhi Wang <zhi.wang.linux@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 08:31:58 -0800
> isaku.yamahata@intel.com wrote:
> 
> > From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
> > 
> > Some KVM MMU operations (dirty page logging, page migration, aging page)
> > aren't supported for private GFNs (yet) with the first generation of TDX.
> > Silently return on unsupported TDX KVM MMU operations.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c     |  3 +++
> >  arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> >  arch/x86/kvm/x86.c         |  3 +++
> >  3 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > index 484e615196aa..ad0482a101a3 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > @@ -6635,6 +6635,9 @@ static bool kvm_mmu_zap_collapsible_spte(struct kvm *kvm,
> >  	for_each_rmap_spte(rmap_head, &iter, sptep) {
> >  		sp = sptep_to_sp(sptep);
> >  
> > +		/* Private page dirty logging is not supported yet. */
> > +		KVM_BUG_ON(is_private_sptep(sptep), kvm);
> > +
> >  		/*
> >  		 * We cannot do huge page mapping for indirect shadow pages,
> >  		 * which are found on the last rmap (level = 1) when not using
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
> > index 5ce0328c71df..69e202bd1897 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
> > @@ -1478,7 +1478,8 @@ typedef bool (*tdp_handler_t)(struct kvm *kvm, struct tdp_iter *iter,
> >  
> >  static __always_inline bool kvm_tdp_mmu_handle_gfn(struct kvm *kvm,
> >  						   struct kvm_gfn_range *range,
> > -						   tdp_handler_t handler)
> > +						   tdp_handler_t handler,
> > +						   bool only_shared)
> 
> What's the purpose of having only_shared while all the callers will set it as
> true?

I dropped only_shared argument.


> >  {
> >  	struct kvm_mmu_page *root;
> >  	struct tdp_iter iter;
> > @@ -1489,9 +1490,23 @@ static __always_inline bool kvm_tdp_mmu_handle_gfn(struct kvm *kvm,
> >  	 * into this helper allow blocking; it'd be dead, wasteful code.
> >  	 */
> >  	for_each_tdp_mmu_root(kvm, root, range->slot->as_id) {
> > +		gfn_t start;
> > +		gfn_t end;
> > +
> > +		if (only_shared && is_private_sp(root))
> > +			continue;
> > +
> >  		rcu_read_lock();
> >  
> > -		tdp_root_for_each_leaf_pte(iter, root, range->start, range->end)
> > +		/*
> > +		 * For TDX shared mapping, set GFN shared bit to the range,
> > +		 * so the handler() doesn't need to set it, to avoid duplicated
> > +		 * code in multiple handler()s.
> > +		 */
> > +		start = kvm_gfn_for_root(kvm, root, range->start);
> > +		end = kvm_gfn_for_root(kvm, root, range->end);
> > +
> 
> The coco implementation tends to treat the SHARED bit / C bit as a page_prot,
> an attribute, not a part of the GFN. From that prospective, the caller needs to
> be aware if it is operating on the private memory or shared memory, so does
> the handler. The page table walker should know the SHARED bit as a attribute.
> 
> I don't think it is a good idea to have two different understandings, which
> will cause conversion and confusion.

I think you're mixing how guest observes it (guest page table) with how
host/VMM manages it(EPT).
-- 
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@gmail.com>
Re: [PATCH v11 050/113] KVM: x86/tdp_mmu: Ignore unsupported mmu operation on private GFNs
Posted by Huang, Kai 2 years, 8 months ago
On Thu, 2023-01-12 at 08:31 -0800, isaku.yamahata@intel.com wrote:
> From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
> 
> Some KVM MMU operations (dirty page logging, page migration, aging page)
> aren't supported for private GFNs (yet) with the first generation of TDX.
> Silently return on unsupported TDX KVM MMU operations.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>


You already have previous patches to do similar things:

[PATCH v11 034/113] KVM: x86/mmu: Disallow fast page fault on private GPA
[PATCH v11 043/113] KVM: x86/tdp_mmu: Don't zap private pages for unsupported
cases
[PATCH v11 048/113] KVM: x86/mmu: Disallow dirty logging for x86 TDX
[PATCH v11 049/113] KVM: x86/mmu: TDX: Do not enable page track for TD guest

Now you have this patch:

[PATCH v11 050/113] KVM: x86/tdp_mmu: Ignore unsupported mmu operation on
private GFNs

They are very confusing to me.  Those previous patches are all "unsupported
operations", correct? 

For instance, this patch says "dirty page logging isn't supported for private
GFNs" (and why there's a 'yet' after it?), so based on the patch title my
understanding is you are going to _ignore_ "dirty page logging".  But you
already have a previous patch to "Disallow dirty logging for x86 TDX".  

Shouldn't the two be in the same patch?  Or you were trying to highlight the
different between "x86/mmu" and "x86/tdp_mmu"?

Please try to make the whole thing more clear.  My first glance is, if it was
me, I would probably have _ONE_ dedicated patch for _EACH_ unsupported
operation, and make it very clear in the patch title.  But you may have your own
way to make things more clearer.

[snip]
Re: [PATCH v11 050/113] KVM: x86/tdp_mmu: Ignore unsupported mmu operation on private GFNs
Posted by Isaku Yamahata 2 years, 6 months ago
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 02:40:46AM +0000,
"Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 2023-01-12 at 08:31 -0800, isaku.yamahata@intel.com wrote:
> > From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
> > 
> > Some KVM MMU operations (dirty page logging, page migration, aging page)
> > aren't supported for private GFNs (yet) with the first generation of TDX.
> > Silently return on unsupported TDX KVM MMU operations.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
> 
> 
> You already have previous patches to do similar things:
> 
> [PATCH v11 034/113] KVM: x86/mmu: Disallow fast page fault on private GPA
> [PATCH v11 043/113] KVM: x86/tdp_mmu: Don't zap private pages for unsupported
> cases
> [PATCH v11 048/113] KVM: x86/mmu: Disallow dirty logging for x86 TDX
> [PATCH v11 049/113] KVM: x86/mmu: TDX: Do not enable page track for TD guest
> 
> Now you have this patch:
> 
> [PATCH v11 050/113] KVM: x86/tdp_mmu: Ignore unsupported mmu operation on
> private GFNs
> 
> They are very confusing to me.  Those previous patches are all "unsupported
> operations", correct? 
> 
> For instance, this patch says "dirty page logging isn't supported for private
> GFNs" (and why there's a 'yet' after it?), so based on the patch title my
> understanding is you are going to _ignore_ "dirty page logging".  But you
> already have a previous patch to "Disallow dirty logging for x86 TDX".  
> 
> Shouldn't the two be in the same patch?  Or you were trying to highlight the
> different between "x86/mmu" and "x86/tdp_mmu"?
> 
> Please try to make the whole thing more clear.  My first glance is, if it was
> me, I would probably have _ONE_ dedicated patch for _EACH_ unsupported
> operation, and make it very clear in the patch title.  But you may have your own
> way to make things more clearer.

Agreed, merged this patch into [PATCH v11 048/113] KVM: x86/mmu: Disallow dirty
logging for x86 TDX.
-- 
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@gmail.com>