From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from theia.8bytes.org (8bytes.org [81.169.241.247])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B2B870
	for <linux-coco@lists.linux.dev>; Wed, 19 May 2021 12:22:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by theia.8bytes.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 562EB2FA; Wed, 19 May 2021 14:22:49 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 14:22:48 +0200
From: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, Hyunwook Baek <baekhw@google.com>,
	Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>, stable@vger.kernel.org,
	hpa@zytor.com, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
	Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>, Cfir Cohen <cfir@google.com>,
	Erdem Aktas <erdemaktas@google.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
	Mike Stunes <mstunes@vmware.com>,
	Martin Radev <martin.b.radev@gmail.com>,
	Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] Revert "x86/sev-es: Handle string port IO to kernel
 memory properly"
Message-ID: <YKUDGIrnR2doYEKj@8bytes.org>
References: <20210512075445.18935-1-joro@8bytes.org>
 <20210512075445.18935-5-joro@8bytes.org>
 <YJwSlVnHb0SZTSrG@google.com>
X-Mailing-List: linux-coco@lists.linux.dev
List-Id: <linux-coco.lists.linux.dev>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:linux-coco+subscribe@lists.linux.dev>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:linux-coco+unsubscribe@lists.linux.dev>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YJwSlVnHb0SZTSrG@google.com>

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 05:38:29PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Alternatively, and probably even better, fold this revert into the switch to
> the unchecked version (sounds like those will use kernel-specific flavors?).

I folded this revert into the previous commit. But I kept the
__get_user()/__put_user() calls and just added a comment explaining why
they are used and why it is safe to use them.

After all, even the get_kernel*() functions call __get_user_size() under
the hood.

Regards,

	Joerg