From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Cc: Ashish Kalra <Ashish.Kalra@amd.com>,
tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com,
michael.roth@amd.com, nikunj@amd.com, seanjc@google.com,
ardb@kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
linux-coco@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] x86/sev: Fix making shared pages private during kdump
Date: Fri, 2 May 2025 15:30:32 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250502133032.GAaBTI-AsaIVn4hOS8@fat_crate.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <633b73ac-8983-fe38-dcdc-0b6a08388f5d@amd.com>
On Thu, May 01, 2025 at 08:56:00AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 4/30/25 18:17, Ashish Kalra wrote:
> > From: Ashish Kalra <ashish.kalra@amd.com>
> >
> > When the shared pages are being made private during kdump preparation
> > there are additional checks to handle shared GHCB pages.
> >
> > These additional checks include handling the case of GHCB page being
> > contained within a huge page.
> >
> > While handling the case of GHCB page contained within a huge page
> > any shared page just below the GHCB page gets skipped from being
> > transitioned back to private during kdump preparation.
>
> Why this was occurring is because the original check was incorrect. The
> check for
>
> ghcb <= addr + size
>
> can result in skipping a range that should not have been skipped because
> the "addr + size" is actually the start of a page/range after the end of
> the range being checked. If the ghcb address was equal to addr + size,
> then it was mistakenly considered part of the range when it really wasn't.
>
> I think the check could have just been changed to:
>
> if (addr <= ghcb && ghcb < addr + size) {
>
> The new checks are a bit clearer in showing normal pages vs huge pages,
> though, but you can clearly see the "ghcb < addr + size" change to do the
> right thing in the huge page case.
>
> While it is likely that a GHCB page hasn't been part of a huge page during
> all the testing, the change in snp_kexec_finish() to mask the address is
> the proper thing to do. It probably doesn't even need the if check as the
> mask can just be applied no matter what.
Sounds like I'll be getting a v3.1 with Tom's suggestions?
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-05-02 13:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-04-30 23:17 [PATCH v3] x86/sev: Fix making shared pages private during kdump Ashish Kalra
2025-05-01 13:56 ` Tom Lendacky
2025-05-02 13:30 ` Borislav Petkov [this message]
2025-05-02 19:32 ` Kalra, Ashish
2025-05-02 19:40 ` Tom Lendacky
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=20250502133032.GAaBTI-AsaIVn4hOS8@fat_crate.local \
--to=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=Ashish.Kalra@amd.com \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-coco@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michael.roth@amd.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=nikunj@amd.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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