linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1.1 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]

Message-ID: <9f47ed0f-99cc-a237-f09b-45291feffcd3@amd.com>
Date:   Wed, 3 Aug 2022 13:21:37 -0500
From:   Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.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 1/2] x86/sev: Use per-CPU PSC structure in prep for
 unaccepted memory support



On 8/3/22 13:17, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 8/3/22 11:11, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Use the MSR protocol when either:
>> +	 *   - executing in an NMI to avoid any possibility of a deadlock
>> +	 *   - per-CPU GHCBs are not yet registered, since __vmgexit_psc()
>> +	 *     uses the per-CPU GHCB.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (in_nmi() || !ghcb_percpu_ready)
>> +		return early_set_pages_state(__pa(vaddr), npages, op);
>> +
>> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&psc_desc_lock, flags);
> 
> Would it be simpler to just do a spin_trylock_irqsave()?  You fall back
> to early_set_pages_state() whenever you can't acquire the lock.

I was looking at that and can definitely go that route if this approach is 
preferred.

Thanks,
Tom

> 
> That avoids even having to know what the situations are where you
> _might_ recurse.  If it recurses, the trylock will just naturally fail.
>   You simply can't have bugs where the "(in_nmi() || !ghcb_percpu_ready)"
> conditional was wrong.