On Thu, 2025-10-30 at 13:09 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Unconditionally assert that mmu_lock is held for write when removing S-EPT
> entries, not just when removing S-EPT entries triggers certain conditions,
> e.g. needs to do TDH_MEM_TRACK or kick vCPUs out of the guest.
> Conditionally asserting implies that it's safe to hold mmu_lock for read
> when those paths aren't hit, which is simply not true, as KVM doesn't
> support removing S-EPT entries under read-lock.
>
> Only two paths lead to remove_external_spte(), and both paths asserts that
^
assert
> mmu_lock is held for write (tdp_mmu_set_spte() via lockdep, and
> handle_removed_pt() via KVM_BUG_ON()).
>
> Deliberately leave lockdep assertions in the "no vCPUs" helpers to document
> that wait_for_sept_zap is guarded by holding mmu_lock for write, and keep
> the conditional assert in tdx_track() as well, but with a comment to help
> explain why holding mmu_lock for write matters (above and beyond why
> tdx_sept_remove_private_spte()'s requirements).
>
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Kai Huang <[email protected]>
