Re: [PATCH -next] memregion: Add arch_flush_memregion() interface

Davidlohr Bueso
2022-09-07T17:43:23Z

On Wed, 07 Sep 2022, Dan Williams wrote:

>Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2022, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 02:29:18PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c b/arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c
>> >> index 1abd5438f126..18463cb704fb 100644
>> >> --- a/arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c
>> >> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c
>> >> @@ -330,6 +330,20 @@ void arch_invalidate_pmem(void *addr, size_t size)
>> >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(arch_invalidate_pmem);
>> >> #endif
>> >>
>> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_MEMREGION_INVALIDATE
>> >> +bool arch_has_flush_memregion(void)
>> >> +{
>> >> + return !cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR);
>> >
>> >This looks really weird. Why does this need to care about HV at all?
>>
>> So the context here is:
>>
>> e2efb6359e62 ("ACPICA: Avoid cache flush inside virtual machines")
>>
>> >
>> >Does that nfit stuff even run in guests?
>>
>> No, nor does cxl. This was mostly in general a precautionary check such
>> that the api is unavailable in VMs.
>
>To be clear nfit stuff and CXL does run in guests, but they do not
>support secure-erase in a guest.

Yes, I meant the feats this api enables.

>However, the QEMU CXL enabling is building the ability to do *guest
>physical* address space management, but in that case the driver can be
>paravirtualized to realize that it is not managing host-physical address
>space and does not need to flush caches. That will need some indicator
>to differentiate virtual CXL memory expanders from assigned devices. Is
>there such a thing as a PCIe-virtio extended capability to differentiate
>physical vs emulated devices?

In any case such check would be specific to each user (cxl in this case),
and outside the scope of _this_ particular api. Here we just really want to
avoid the broken TDX guest bits.

Thanks,
Davidlohr