[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8ab309cd-8465-d543-55c8-5f6529fe74fd@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 12:00:01 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>,
Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Sergio Lopez <slp@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Dov Murik <dovmurik@...ux.ibm.com>,
Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum <tobin@....com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, tony.luck@...el.com,
Nathaniel McCallum <npmccallum@...hat.com>,
brijesh.ksingh@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 06/40] x86/sev: Add helper functions for
RMPUPDATE and PSMASH instruction
On 7/12/21 11:44 AM, Peter Gonda wrote:
>> +int psmash(struct page *page)
>> +{
>> + unsigned long spa = page_to_pfn(page) << PAGE_SHIFT;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + if (!cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_SEV_SNP))
>> + return -ENXIO;
>> +
>> + /* Retry if another processor is modifying the RMP entry. */
>> + do {
>> + /* Binutils version 2.36 supports the PSMASH mnemonic. */
>> + asm volatile(".byte 0xF3, 0x0F, 0x01, 0xFF"
>> + : "=a"(ret)
>> + : "a"(spa)
>> + : "memory", "cc");
>> + } while (ret == FAIL_INUSE);
> Should there be some retry limit here for safety? Or do we know that
> we'll never be stuck in this loop? Ditto for the loop in rmpupdate.
It's probably fine to just leave this. While you could *theoretically*
lose this race forever, it's unlikely to happen in practice. If it
does, you'll get an easy-to-understand softlockup backtrace which should
point here pretty quickly.
I think TDX has a few of these as well. Most of the "SEAMCALL"s from
host to the firmware doing the security enforcement have something like
an -EBUSY as well. I believe they just retry forever too.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists