kvm.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: "Pratik R. Sampat" <pratikrajesh.sampat@amd.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, pgonda@google.com,
	 thomas.lendacky@amd.com, michael.roth@amd.com, shuah@kernel.org,
	 linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] KVM: selftests: Add a basic SNP smoke test
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 06:46:24 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZyI4cRLsaTQ3FMk7@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <71f0fb41-d5a7-450b-ba47-ad6c39dce586@amd.com>

On Mon, Oct 28, 2024, Pratik R. Sampat wro4te:
> On 10/28/2024 12:55 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 21, 2024, Pratik R. Sampat wrote:
> >>>> +		if (unlikely(!is_smt_active()))
> >>>> +			snp_policy &= ~SNP_POLICY_SMT;
> >>>
> >>> Why does SNP_POLICY assume SMT?  And what is RSVD_MBO?  E.g. why not this?
> >>>
> >>> 		u64 policy = is_smt_active() ? SNP_POLICY_SMT : SNP_POLICY;
> >>>
> >>
> >> I think most systems support SMT so I enabled the bit in by default and
> >> only unset it when there isn't any support.
> > 
> > That's confusing though, because you're mixing architectural defines with semi-
> > arbitrary selftests behavior.  RSVD_MBO on the other is apparently tightly coupled
> > with SNP, i.e. SNP can't exist without that bit, so it makes sense that RSVD_MBO
> > needs to be part of SNP_POLICY
> > 
> > If you want to have a *software*-defined default policy, then make it obvious that
> > it's software defined.  E.g. name the #define SNP_DEFAULT_POLICY, not simply
> > SNP_POLICY, because the latter is too easily misconstrued as the base SNP policy,
> > which it is not.  That said, IIUC, SMT *must* match the host configuration, i.e.
> > whether or not SMT is set is non-negotiable.  In that case, there's zero value in
> > defining SNP_DEFAULT_POLICY, because it can't be a sane default for all systems.
> > 
> 
> Right, SMT should match the host configuration. Would a
> SNP_DEFAULT_POLICY work if we made it check for SMT too in the macro?
> 
> Instead of,
> #define SNP_POLICY	(SNP_POLICY_SMT | SNP_POLICY_RSVD_MBO)
> 
> Have something like this instead to make it generic and less ambiguous?
> #define SNP_DEFAULT_POLICY()		 			       \
> ({								       \
> 	SNP_POLICY_RSVD_MBO | (is_smt_active() ? SNP_POLICY_SMT : 0);  \
> })

No, unless it's the least awful option, don't hide dynamic functionality in a macro
that looks like it holds static data.  The idea is totally fine, but put it in an
actual helper, not a macro, _if_ there's actually a need for a default policy.
If there's only ever one main path that creates SNP VMs, then I don't see the point
in specifying a default policy.

> > Side topic, I assume one of SEV_POLICY_NO_DBG or SNP_POLICY_DBG *must* be specified, 
> > and that they are mutualy exclusive?  E.g. what happens if the full policy is simply
> > SNP_POLICY_RSVD_MBO?
> 
> SEV_POLICY_NO_DBG is mainly for the guest policy structure of SEV and
> SEV-ES - pg 31, Table 2
> https://www.amd.com/content/dam/amd/en/documents/epyc-technical-docs/programmer-references/55766_SEV-KM_API_Specification.pdf
> 
> and, SNP_POLICY_DBG is a bit in the guest policy structure of SNP - pg
> 27, Table 9
> https://www.amd.com/content/dam/amd/en/documents/epyc-technical-docs/specifications/56860.pdf
> 
> In the former, a SEV guest disables debugging if SEV_POLICY_NO_DBG is
> set. Similarly, a SNP guest enables debugging if SNP_POLICY_DBG is set.

Ugh, one is SEV_xxx, the other is SNP_xxx.  Argh!  And IIUC, they are mutually
exclusive (totally separate thigns?), because SNP guests use an 8-byte structure,
whereas SEV/SEV-ES use a 4-byte structure, and with different layouts.

That means this is _extremely_ confusing.  Separate the SEV_xxx defines from the
SNP_xxx defines, because other than a name, they have nothing in common.

+/* Minimum firmware version required for the SEV-SNP support */
+#define SNP_FW_REQ_VER_MAJOR   1
+#define SNP_FW_REQ_VER_MINOR   51

Side topic, why are these hardcoded?  And where did they come from?  If they're
arbitrary KVM selftests values, make that super duper clear.

+#define SNP_POLICY_MINOR_BIT   0
+#define SNP_POLICY_MAJOR_BIT   8

s/BIT/SHIFT.  "BIT" implies they are a single bit, which is obviously not the
case.  But I vote to omit the extra #define entirely and just open code the shift
in the SNP_FW_VER_{MAJOR,MINOR} macros.

 #define SEV_POLICY_NO_DBG      (1UL << 0)
 #define SEV_POLICY_ES          (1UL << 2)
+#define SNP_POLICY_SMT         (1ULL << 16)
+#define SNP_POLICY_RSVD_MBO    (1ULL << 17)
+#define SNP_POLICY_DBG         (1ULL << 19)
+#define SNP_POLICY             (SNP_POLICY_SMT | SNP_POLICY_RSVD_MBO)
+
+#define SNP_FW_VER_MAJOR(maj)  ((uint8_t)(maj) << SNP_POLICY_MAJOR_BIT)
+#define SNP_FW_VER_MINOR(min)  ((uint8_t)(min) << SNP_POLICY_MINOR_BIT)

  reply	other threads:[~2024-10-30 13:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-09-05 12:40 [PATCH v3 0/9] SEV Kernel Selftests Pratik R. Sampat
2024-09-05 12:40 ` [PATCH v3 1/9] KVM: selftests: Decouple SEV ioctls from asserts Pratik R. Sampat
2024-10-14 22:18   ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-21 20:23     ` Pratik R. Sampat
2024-09-05 12:41 ` [PATCH v3 2/9] KVM: selftests: Add a basic SNP smoke test Pratik R. Sampat
2024-10-14 22:46   ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-21 20:23     ` Pratik R. Sampat
2024-10-28 17:55       ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-28 20:41         ` Pratik R. Sampat
2024-10-30 13:46           ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2024-10-30 16:35             ` Pratik R. Sampat
2024-10-30 17:57               ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-31 15:45                 ` Pratik R. Sampat
2024-10-31 16:27                   ` Sean Christopherson
2024-11-04 20:21                     ` Pratik R. Sampat
2024-11-04 23:47                       ` Sean Christopherson
2024-11-05  4:14                         ` Pratik R. Sampat
2024-09-05 12:41 ` [PATCH v3 3/9] KVM: selftests: Add SNP to shutdown testing Pratik R. Sampat
2024-09-05 12:41 ` [PATCH v3 4/9] KVM: selftests: SEV IOCTL test Pratik R. Sampat
2024-09-05 12:41 ` [PATCH v3 5/9] KVM: selftests: SNP " Pratik R. Sampat
2024-09-05 12:41 ` [PATCH v3 6/9] KVM: selftests: SEV-SNP test for KVM_SEV_INIT2 Pratik R. Sampat
2024-09-05 12:41 ` [PATCH v3 7/9] KVM: selftests: Add interface to manually flag protected/encrypted ranges Pratik R. Sampat
2024-10-14 22:58   ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-21 20:23     ` Pratik R. Sampat
2024-09-05 12:41 ` [PATCH v3 8/9] KVM: selftests: Add a CoCo-specific test for KVM_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY Pratik R. Sampat
2024-09-05 12:41 ` [PATCH v3 9/9] KVM: selftests: Interleave fallocate " Pratik R. Sampat
2024-10-14 22:23 ` [PATCH v3 0/9] SEV Kernel Selftests Sean Christopherson
2024-10-21 20:23   ` Pratik R. Sampat

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=ZyI4cRLsaTQ3FMk7@google.com \
    --to=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=michael.roth@amd.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=pgonda@google.com \
    --cc=pratikrajesh.sampat@amd.com \
    --cc=shuah@kernel.org \
    --cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
    /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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).