linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V7 1/5] swiotlb: Add swiotlb bounce buffer remap function for HV IVM

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]

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?