linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] x86/sev: Use per-CPU PSC structure in prep for unaccepted memory support

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:   Fri, 29 Jul 2022 12:08:38 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] x86/sev: Use per-CPU PSC structure in prep for
 unaccepted memory support

On 7/29/22 07:25, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> Considering that runtime acceptance is already single-threaded[1] *and*
>> there's a fallback method, why not just have a single copy of this
>> guarded by a single lock?
> 
> This function is called for more than just memory acceptance. It's also
> called for any changes from or to private or shared, which isn't
> single-threaded.

I think this tidbit from the changelog threw me off:

> Protect the use of the per-CPU structure by disabling interrupts during
> memory acceptance.

Could you please revise that to accurately capture the impact of this
change?