From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48C8EC432BE for ; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 07:17:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CA0661368 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 07:17:49 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 9CA0661368 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lists.ozlabs.org Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Gv0n812SXz2yPP for ; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 17:17:48 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; secure) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=casper.20170209 header.b=l0RA5+0l; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=none (no SPF record) smtp.mailfrom=casper.srs.infradead.org (client-ip=2001:8b0:10b:1236::1; helo=casper.infradead.org; envelope-from=batv+f96701cc9b95d8800a83+6575+infradead.org+hch@casper.srs.infradead.org; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; secure) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=casper.20170209 header.b=l0RA5+0l; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [IPv6:2001:8b0:10b:1236::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Gv0mM1bfZz2xnd for ; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 17:17:04 +1000 (AEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=u2jjKxNoYoIqkuUBOVaU0g9hA7j5FEUKEzONmfPEFRs=; b=l0RA5+0lIDtpN8Qsm8qgG9uLOs 8eClxBaokH3TyZM/fu8ykw6ZD3oCED17rxUrpLs0TtHot/9XJECBVSsY9dqwrfZEMuNDPQh43FRwB gwr+bd3HMFV1W5C6/t8vtIAK0gchzdE/kqUnfspiLdm9pQGzx1360mkBMMfe+XyJFRijFq2K3ePSr Jff3vPErlsbRwyhgZ70I86mOyH8JMJcY3mI4n/qCuMatfUmzB4kKpKhH3faryhLixp+fcY+HXVAOh PoC9+BbF8dkfZF5wppyEi6qopLgHXvjed9HLCvhzBV9c0zMcG0Q8n3Oaf7OpZqZFQwTLhSiLC+K35 CAj2ybqg==; Received: from hch by casper.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1mIQdm-00AhZQ-Cu; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 07:14:45 +0000 Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 08:14:34 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Tom Lendacky Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/12] x86/sev: Add an x86 version of prot_guest_has() Message-ID: References: <7d55bac0cf2e73f53816bce3a3097877ed9663f3.1628873970.git.thomas.lendacky@amd.com> <4272eaf5-b654-2669-62ac-ba768acd6b91@amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4272eaf5-b654-2669-62ac-ba768acd6b91@amd.com> X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by casper.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy , linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, Brijesh Singh , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Dave Hansen , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen , Joerg Roedel , x86@kernel.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Christoph Hellwig , Ingo Molnar , linux-graphics-maintainer@vmware.com, Joerg Roedel , Tianyu Lan , Borislav Petkov , Andy Lutomirski , Thomas Gleixner , kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 01:33:09PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote: > I did it as inline originally because the presence of the function will be > decided based on the ARCH_HAS_PROTECTED_GUEST config. For now, that is > only selected by the AMD memory encryption support, so if I went out of > line I could put in mem_encrypt.c. But with TDX wanting to also use it, it > would have to be in an always built file with some #ifdefs or in its own > file that is conditionally built based on the ARCH_HAS_PROTECTED_GUEST > setting (they've already tried building with ARCH_HAS_PROTECTED_GUEST=y > and AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT not set). > > To take it out of line, I'm leaning towards the latter, creating a new > file that is built based on the ARCH_HAS_PROTECTED_GUEST setting. Yes. In general everytime architectures have to provide the prototype and not just the implementation of something we end up with a giant mess sooner or later. In a few cases that is still warranted due to performance concerns, but i don't think that is the case here. > > > > >> +/* 0x800 - 0x8ff reserved for AMD */ > >> +#define PATTR_SME 0x800 > >> +#define PATTR_SEV 0x801 > >> +#define PATTR_SEV_ES 0x802 > > > > Why do we need reservations for a purely in-kernel namespace? > > > > And why are you overoading a brand new generic API with weird details > > of a specific implementation like this? > > There was some talk about this on the mailing list where TDX and SEV may > need to be differentiated, so we wanted to reserve a range of values per > technology. I guess I can remove them until they are actually needed. In that case add a flag for the differing behavior. And only add them when actually needed. And either way there is absolutely no need to reserve ranges.