From: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@amd.com>
To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ashish Kalra <ashish.kalra@amd.com>,
John Allen <john.allen@amd.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
"Borislav Petkov (AMD)" <bp@alien8.de>,
Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypto/ccp: Fix locking on alloc failure handling
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 11:41:41 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7d4bde18-bbb7-4177-8577-b96c16f80d1d@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a0ce9850-cde4-4e17-997b-ad06a76a23d6@amd.com>
On 21/6/25 05:20, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 6/17/25 04:43, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>> The __snp_alloc_firmware_pages() helper allocates pages in the firmware
>> state (alloc + rmpupdate). In case of failed rmpupdate, it tries
>> reclaiming pages with already changed state. This requires calling
>> the PSP firmware and since there is sev_cmd_mutex to guard such calls,
>> the helper takes a "locked" parameter so specify if the lock needs to
>> be held.
>>
>> Most calls happen from snp_alloc_firmware_page() which executes without
>> the lock. However
>>
>> commit 24512afa4336 ("crypto: ccp: Handle the legacy TMR allocation when SNP is enabled")
>>
>> switched sev_fw_alloc() from alloc_pages() (which does not call the PSP) to
>> __snp_alloc_firmware_pages() (which does) but did not account for the fact
>> that sev_fw_alloc() is called from __sev_platform_init_locked()
>> (via __sev_platform_init_handle_tmr()) and executes with the lock held.
>>
>> Add a "locked" parameter to __snp_alloc_firmware_pages().
>> Make sev_fw_alloc() use the new parameter to prevent potential deadlock in
>> rmp_mark_pages_firmware() if rmpupdate() failed.
>
> Would it make sense to add the locked parameter to sev_fw_alloc(), too?
That would be another patch then, this one is a fix ;)
and I'd probably just ditch both snp_alloc_firmware_page() and sev_fw_alloc(), rename __snp_alloc_firmware_pages() to snp_alloc_firmware_page() and just use this one everywhere. Nobody needs page struct anyway, and the locking will be clear everywhere. Also do the same for snp_free_firmware_page().
It is just that snp_alloc_firmware_page() and snp_free_firmware_page() are EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL,
> Right now there is only one caller of sev_fw_alloc(), but in the future,
> if some other path should call sev_fw_alloc() and that path doesn't have
> the lock, then we'll miss taking it.
I'd rather just ditch sev_fw_alloc(), does not look very useful. Thanks,
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
>>
>> Fixes: 24512afa4336 ("crypto: ccp: Handle the legacy TMR allocation when SNP is enabled")
>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@amd.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/crypto/ccp/sev-dev.c | 8 ++++----
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/crypto/ccp/sev-dev.c b/drivers/crypto/ccp/sev-dev.c
>> index 3451bada884e..16a11d5efe46 100644
>> --- a/drivers/crypto/ccp/sev-dev.c
>> +++ b/drivers/crypto/ccp/sev-dev.c
>> @@ -434,7 +434,7 @@ static int rmp_mark_pages_firmware(unsigned long paddr, unsigned int npages, boo
>> return rc;
>> }
>>
>> -static struct page *__snp_alloc_firmware_pages(gfp_t gfp_mask, int order)
>> +static struct page *__snp_alloc_firmware_pages(gfp_t gfp_mask, int order, bool locked)
>> {
>> unsigned long npages = 1ul << order, paddr;
>> struct sev_device *sev;
>> @@ -453,7 +453,7 @@ static struct page *__snp_alloc_firmware_pages(gfp_t gfp_mask, int order)
>> return page;
>>
>> paddr = __pa((unsigned long)page_address(page));
>> - if (rmp_mark_pages_firmware(paddr, npages, false))
>> + if (rmp_mark_pages_firmware(paddr, npages, locked))
>> return NULL;
>>
>> return page;
>> @@ -463,7 +463,7 @@ void *snp_alloc_firmware_page(gfp_t gfp_mask)
>> {
>> struct page *page;
>>
>> - page = __snp_alloc_firmware_pages(gfp_mask, 0);
>> + page = __snp_alloc_firmware_pages(gfp_mask, 0, false);
>>
>> return page ? page_address(page) : NULL;
>> }
>> @@ -498,7 +498,7 @@ static void *sev_fw_alloc(unsigned long len)
>> {
>> struct page *page;
>>
>> - page = __snp_alloc_firmware_pages(GFP_KERNEL, get_order(len));
>> + page = __snp_alloc_firmware_pages(GFP_KERNEL, get_order(len), true);
>> if (!page)
>> return NULL;
>>
--
Alexey
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-24 1:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-17 9:43 [PATCH] crypto/ccp: Fix locking on alloc failure handling Alexey Kardashevskiy
2025-06-20 19:20 ` Tom Lendacky
2025-06-24 1:41 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy [this message]
2025-06-24 15:20 ` Tom Lendacky
2025-06-26 14:50 ` Pratik R. Sampat
2025-07-07 3:29 ` Herbert Xu
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=7d4bde18-bbb7-4177-8577-b96c16f80d1d@amd.com \
--to=aik@amd.com \
--cc=ashish.kalra@amd.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=john.allen@amd.com \
--cc=linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michael.roth@amd.com \
--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