Re: [RFC PATCH v2 08/32] x86: Use PAGE_KERNEL protection for ioremap of memory page

[Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>]

On 3/17/2017 9:32 AM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 3/16/2017 3:04 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> On 3/7/2017 8:59 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 10:13:32AM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote:
>>>> From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
>>>>
>>>> In order for memory pages to be properly mapped when SEV is active, we
>>>> need to use the PAGE_KERNEL protection attribute as the base
>>>> protection.
>>>> This will insure that memory mapping of, e.g. ACPI tables, receives the
>>>> proper mapping attributes.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
>>>> ---
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c b/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c
>>>> index c400ab5..481c999 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c
>>>> @@ -151,7 +151,15 @@ static void __iomem
>>>> *__ioremap_caller(resource_size_t phys_addr,
>>>>                 pcm = new_pcm;
>>>>         }
>>>>
>>>> +       /*
>>>> +        * If the page being mapped is in memory and SEV is active then
>>>> +        * make sure the memory encryption attribute is enabled in the
>>>> +        * resulting mapping.
>>>> +        */
>>>>         prot = PAGE_KERNEL_IO;
>>>> +       if (sev_active() && page_is_mem(pfn))
>>>
>>> Hmm, a resource tree walk per ioremap call. This could get expensive for
>>> ioremap-heavy workloads.
>>>
>>> __ioremap_caller() gets called here during boot 55 times so not a whole
>>> lot but I wouldn't be surprised if there were some nasty use cases which
>>> ioremap a lot.
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/resource.c b/kernel/resource.c
>>>> index 9b5f044..db56ba3 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/resource.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/resource.c
>>>> @@ -518,6 +518,46 @@ int __weak page_is_ram(unsigned long pfn)
>>>>  }
>>>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(page_is_ram);
>>>>
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * This function returns true if the target memory is marked as
>>>> + * IORESOURCE_MEM and IORESOUCE_BUSY and described as other than
>>>> + * IORES_DESC_NONE (e.g. IORES_DESC_ACPI_TABLES).
>>>> + */
>>>> +static int walk_mem_range(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long
>>>> nr_pages)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    struct resource res;
>>>> +    unsigned long pfn, end_pfn;
>>>> +    u64 orig_end;
>>>> +    int ret = -1;
>>>> +
>>>> +    res.start = (u64) start_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT;
>>>> +    res.end = ((u64)(start_pfn + nr_pages) << PAGE_SHIFT) - 1;
>>>> +    res.flags = IORESOURCE_MEM | IORESOURCE_BUSY;
>>>> +    orig_end = res.end;
>>>> +    while ((res.start < res.end) &&
>>>> +        (find_next_iomem_res(&res, IORES_DESC_NONE, true) >= 0)) {
>>>> +        pfn = (res.start + PAGE_SIZE - 1) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>>>> +        end_pfn = (res.end + 1) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>>>> +        if (end_pfn > pfn)
>>>> +            ret = (res.desc != IORES_DESC_NONE) ? 1 : 0;
>>>> +        if (ret)
>>>> +            break;
>>>> +        res.start = res.end + 1;
>>>> +        res.end = orig_end;
>>>> +    }
>>>> +    return ret;
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> So the relevant difference between this one and walk_system_ram_range()
>>> is this:
>>>
>>> -            ret = (*func)(pfn, end_pfn - pfn, arg);
>>> +            ret = (res.desc != IORES_DESC_NONE) ? 1 : 0;
>>>
>>> so it seems to me you can have your own *func() pointer which does that
>>> IORES_DESC_NONE comparison. And then you can define your own workhorse
>>> __walk_memory_range() which gets called by both walk_mem_range() and
>>> walk_system_ram_range() instead of almost duplicating them.
>>>
>>> And looking at walk_system_ram_res(), that one looks similar too except
>>> the pfn computation. But AFAICT the pfn/end_pfn things are computed from
>>> res.start and res.end so it looks to me like all those three functions
>>> are crying for unification...
>>
>> I'll take a look at what it takes to consolidate these with a pre-patch.
>> Then I'll add the new support.
>
> It looks pretty straight forward to combine walk_iomem_res_desc() and
> walk_system_ram_res(). The walk_system_ram_range() function would fit
> easily into this, also, except for the fact that the callback function
> takes unsigned longs vs the u64s of the other functions.  Is it worth
> modifying all of the callers of walk_system_ram_range() (which are only
> about 8 locations) to change the callback functions to accept u64s in
> order to consolidate the walk_system_ram_range() function, too?

The more I dig, the more I find that the changes keep expanding. I'll
leave walk_system_ram_range() out of the consolidation for now.

Thanks,
Tom

>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tom
>>
>>>

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>