[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220222105541.izv4psjychjx5ooq@liuwe-devbox-debian-v2>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 10:55:41 +0000
From: Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>
To: Tianyu Lan <ltykernel@...il.com>
Cc: 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, brijesh.singh@....com,
michael.roth@....com, jroedel@...e.de, Tianyu.Lan@...rosoft.com,
thomas.lendacky@....com, michael.h.kelley@...rosoft.com,
linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC FATCH] x86/Hyper-V: Add SEV negotiate protocol support in
Isolation VM.
On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 11:09:28AM -0500, Tianyu Lan wrote:
> From: Tianyu Lan <Tianyu.Lan@...rosoft.com>
>
> Hyper-V Isolation VM code uses sev_es_ghcb_hv_call() to read/write MSR
> via ghcb page. The SEV-ES guest should call the sev_es_negotiate_protocol()
> to negotiate the GHCB protocol version before establishing the GHCB. Call
> sev_es_negotiate_protocol() in the hyperv_init_ghcb().
>
> Signed-off-by: Tianyu Lan <Tianyu.Lan@...rosoft.com>
> ---
> This patch based on the "Add AMD Secure Nested Paging (SEV-SNP) Guest Support"
> patchset. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220128171804.569796-1-brijesh.singh@amd.com/
>
> arch/x86/hyperv/hv_init.c | 6 ++++++
> arch/x86/include/asm/sev.h | 2 ++
> arch/x86/kernel/sev-shared.c | 2 +-
> arch/x86/kernel/sev.c | 4 ++--
> 4 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/hyperv/hv_init.c b/arch/x86/hyperv/hv_init.c
> index 24f4a06ac46a..a22303fccf02 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/hyperv/hv_init.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/hyperv/hv_init.c
> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
> #include <linux/syscore_ops.h>
> #include <clocksource/hyperv_timer.h>
> #include <linux/highmem.h>
> +#include <asm/sev.h>
>
> int hyperv_init_cpuhp;
> u64 hv_current_partition_id = ~0ull;
> @@ -69,6 +70,11 @@ static int hyperv_init_ghcb(void)
> ghcb_base = (void **)this_cpu_ptr(hv_ghcb_pg);
> *ghcb_base = ghcb_va;
>
> + sev_es_negotiate_protocol();
The return value should be checked, right?
There is no logical connection between this function call and the wrmsrl
below. Is there new information available after calling
sev_es_negotiate_protocol?
> +
> + /* Write ghcb page back after negotiating protocol. */
> + wrmsrl(MSR_AMD64_SEV_ES_GHCB, ghcb_gpa);
> + VMGEXIT();
> return 0;
> }
>
[...]
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/sev.c b/arch/x86/kernel/sev.c
> index 3568b3303314..46c53c4885ee 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/sev.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/sev.c
> @@ -167,12 +167,12 @@ void noinstr __sev_es_ist_exit(void)
> this_cpu_write(cpu_tss_rw.x86_tss.ist[IST_INDEX_VC], *(unsigned long *)ist);
> }
>
> -static inline u64 sev_es_rd_ghcb_msr(void)
> +inline u64 sev_es_rd_ghcb_msr(void)
> {
> return __rdmsr(MSR_AMD64_SEV_ES_GHCB);
> }
>
> -static __always_inline void sev_es_wr_ghcb_msr(u64 val)
> +__always_inline void sev_es_wr_ghcb_msr(u64 val)
Why are these needed? They are not used anywhere in this patch.
Thanks,
Wei.
> {
> u32 low, high;
>
> --
> 2.25.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists