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 Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FB49C3DA7D for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 15:05:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 0078F8E0002; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 10:05:40 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id EFA1D8E0001; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 10:05:39 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id DC2608E0002; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 10:05:39 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0014.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.14]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA1CE8E0001 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 10:05:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin27.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DC72140926 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 15:05:39 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 80321069598.27.5C38FA2 Received: from mail.skyhub.de (unknown [5.9.137.197]) by imf10.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C37C9C0008 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 15:05:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf10.hostedemail.com; dkim=temperror ("DNS error when getting key") header.d=alien8.de header.s=dkim header.b=o+f2lFmx; spf=temperror (imf10.hostedemail.com: error in processing during lookup of bp@alien8.de: DNS error) smtp.mailfrom=bp@alien8.de; dmarc=temperror reason="server fail" header.from=alien8.de (policy=temperror) ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1672931134; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=pz/6K1O/mEgg3gsu7MS9F5Yn57harlNnTSnK+52eu92loEOWoFGwaRtsuh85Kmq1OY8kBW rJckMcYL+DZ2tsfrkxvyNMAavywYLdUhojC81I7oxj52SvdLf4qGkFrxtS/sRkwkGUH6ul 9j7p8Y/o093YxS4HahJ7tVcCS0P/jR4= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf10.hostedemail.com; dkim=temperror ("DNS error when getting key") header.d=alien8.de header.s=dkim header.b=o+f2lFmx; spf=temperror (imf10.hostedemail.com: error in processing during lookup of bp@alien8.de: DNS error) smtp.mailfrom=bp@alien8.de; dmarc=temperror reason="server fail" header.from=alien8.de (policy=temperror) ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1672931134; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=GMhRtk9cEauGSmA4lPJVHebUyYxqUZuIY1TvE+SPTcQ=; b=gqhnfXfN67tnWKOjw/B8h8/GAxAON38k2AEYRBQxoeuQTyafoY7SyfZNQLGlMBiRGQqYaj UEhjrSgWuMZ6EejUjDEL/nZ2HrIszswFADvr6n7JPqG5XF/mOJoBuUluJrUAS6WYtUkQ73 qFRtsL8tS87MECW8Nus64Qg1LUzvXg4= Received: from zn.tnic (p5de8e9fe.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.232.233.254]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.skyhub.de (SuperMail on ZX Spectrum 128k) with ESMTPSA id 358AE1EC06C1; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 16:04:56 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alien8.de; s=dkim; t=1672931096; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=GMhRtk9cEauGSmA4lPJVHebUyYxqUZuIY1TvE+SPTcQ=; b=o+f2lFmxFzDQwrfUVndeh9pSFO8/LILqo+ZjpnBMTpmkZ2j3xQE7du8BJEeP4NOvinPKDJ CZ2SUiY4EhKFCAxxNXGnIO9ZwiomP4VihxslRhAomrMtQRbs/vKjrA4VaMa7aldn2n3R8J wqYVXKk5PfqMtT/WLzrqxpxBNT1yYo0= Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2023 16:04:51 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov To: Michael Roth Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, jroedel@suse.de, thomas.lendacky@amd.com, hpa@zytor.com, ardb@kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, seanjc@google.com, vkuznets@redhat.com, wanpengli@tencent.com, jmattson@google.com, luto@kernel.org, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, slp@redhat.com, pgonda@google.com, peterz@infradead.org, srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com, rientjes@google.com, dovmurik@linux.ibm.com, tobin@ibm.com, vbabka@suse.cz, kirill@shutemov.name, ak@linux.intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com, marcorr@google.com, sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com, alpergun@google.com, dgilbert@redhat.com, jarkko@kernel.org, ashish.kalra@amd.com, harald@profian.com, Nikunj A Dadhania , chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v7 03/64] KVM: SVM: Advertise private memory support to KVM Message-ID: References: <20221214194056.161492-1-michael.roth@amd.com> <20221214194056.161492-4-michael.roth@amd.com> <20230105021419.rs23nfq44rv64tsd@amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20230105021419.rs23nfq44rv64tsd@amd.com> X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: C37C9C0008 X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-Stat-Signature: cu66g7qotsic83gzp1onh7hhp15inuzo X-HE-Tag: 1672931131-921166 X-HE-Meta: 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 1egU5NBh YBRP1SM8bmfeXU5Mc6an4gDtqdKqFxrEhL8Dq5WuVPpj5g5uAiQUznrRY7Em5vCn/HVSo X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 08:14:19PM -0600, Michael Roth wrote: > Maybe that's not actually enforced, by it seems awkward to try to use a > bool return instead. At least for KVM_X86_OP_OPTIONAL_RET0(). I don't see there being a problem/restriction for bool functions, see 5be2226f417d ("KVM: x86: allow defining return-0 static calls") and __static_call_return0() returns a long which, if you wanna interpret as bool, works too as "false". I still need to disassemble and single-step through a static_call to see what all that magic does in detail, to be sure. > However, we could just use KVM_X86_OP() to declare it so we can cleanly > use a function that returns bool, and then we just need to do: > > bool kvm_arch_has_private_mem(struct kvm *kvm) > { > if (kvm_x86_ops.private_mem_enabled) > return static_call(kvm_x86_private_mem_enabled)(kvm); That would be defeating the whole purpose of static calls, AFAICT, as you're testing the pointer. Might as well leave it be a normal function pointer then. > On a separate topic though, at a high level, this hook is basically a way > for platform-specific code to tell generic KVM code that private memslots > are supported by overriding the kvm_arch_has_private_mem() weak > reference. In this case the AMD platform is using using kvm->arch.upm_mode > flag to convey that, which is in turn set by the > KVM_CAP_UNMAPPED_PRIVATE_MEMORY introduced in this series. > > But if, as I suggested in response to your PATCH 2 comments, we drop > KVM_CAP_UNAMMPED_PRIVATE_MEMORY in favor of > KVM_SET_SUPPORTED_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES ioctl to enable "UPM mode" in SEV/SNP > code, then we need to rethink things a bit, since KVM_SET_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES > in-part relies on kvm_arch_has_private_mem() to determine what flags are > supported, whereas SEV/SNP code would be using what was set by > KVM_SET_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES to determine the return value in > kvm_arch_has_private_mem(). > > So, for AMD, the return value of kvm_arch_has_private_mem() needs to rely > on something else. Maybe the logic can just be: > > bool svm_private_mem_enabled(struct kvm *kvm) > { > return sev_enabled(kvm) || sev_snp_enabled(kvm) I haven't followed the whole discussion in detail but this means that SEV/SNP *means* UPM. I.e., no SEV/SNP without UPM, correct? I guess that's the final thing you guys decided to do ... Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette