lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <198e9243-abca-b23e-0e8e-8581a7329ede@intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 Dec 2021 08:45:00 -0800
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Tianyu Lan <ltykernel@...il.com>, kys@...rosoft.com,
        haiyangz@...rosoft.com, sthemmin@...rosoft.com, wei.liu@...nel.org,
        decui@...rosoft.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
        bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org,
        hpa@...or.com, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
        jejb@...ux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com, arnd@...db.de,
        hch@...radead.org, m.szyprowski@...sung.com, robin.murphy@....com,
        thomas.lendacky@....com, Tianyu.Lan@...rosoft.com,
        michael.h.kelley@...rosoft.com
Cc:     iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        vkuznets@...hat.com, brijesh.singh@....com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
        hch@....de, joro@...tes.org, parri.andrea@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 1/5] swiotlb: Add swiotlb bounce buffer remap function
 for HV IVM

On 12/12/21 11:14 PM, Tianyu Lan wrote:
> In Isolation VM with AMD SEV, bounce buffer needs to be accessed via
> extra address space which is above shared_gpa_boundary (E.G 39 bit
> address line) reported by Hyper-V CPUID ISOLATION_CONFIG. The access
> physical address will be original physical address + shared_gpa_boundary.
> The shared_gpa_boundary in the AMD SEV SNP spec is called virtual top of
> memory(vTOM). Memory addresses below vTOM are automatically treated as
> private while memory above vTOM is treated as shared.

This seems to be independently reintroducing some of the SEV
infrastructure.  Is it really OK that this doesn't interact at all with
any existing SEV code?

For instance, do we need a new 'swiotlb_unencrypted_base', or should
this just be using sme_me_mask somehow?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ