[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YxLXJk36EKxldC1S@nazgul.tnic>
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2022 06:25:36 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "Kalra, Ashish" <Ashish.Kalra@....com>
Cc: "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev" <linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"jroedel@...e.de" <jroedel@...e.de>,
"Lendacky, Thomas" <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"ardb@...nel.org" <ardb@...nel.org>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"vkuznets@...hat.com" <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
"jmattson@...gle.com" <jmattson@...gle.com>,
"luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"slp@...hat.com" <slp@...hat.com>,
"pgonda@...gle.com" <pgonda@...gle.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com"
<srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
"rientjes@...gle.com" <rientjes@...gle.com>,
"dovmurik@...ux.ibm.com" <dovmurik@...ux.ibm.com>,
"tobin@....com" <tobin@....com>,
"Roth, Michael" <Michael.Roth@....com>,
"vbabka@...e.cz" <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"kirill@...temov.name" <kirill@...temov.name>,
"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"tony.luck@...el.com" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"marcorr@...gle.com" <marcorr@...gle.com>,
"sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com"
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
"alpergun@...gle.com" <alpergun@...gle.com>,
"dgilbert@...hat.com" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
"jarkko@...nel.org" <jarkko@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH Part2 v6 09/49] x86/fault: Add support to handle the RMP
fault for user address
On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 03:33:20PM +0000, Kalra, Ashish wrote:
> Yes we want to map the faulting address to a RMP entry, but hugepage
> entries in RMP table are basically subpage 4K entries. So it is a 4K
> entry when the page is a 2M one and also a 4K entry when the page is a
> 1G one.
Wait, what?!
APM v2 section "15.36.11 Large Page Management" and PSMASH are then for
what exactly?
> That's why the computation to get a 4K page index within a 2M/1G
> hugepage mapping is required.
What if a guest RMP-faults on a 2M page and there's a corresponding 2M
RMP entry? What do you need the 4K entry then for?
Hell, __snp_lookup_rmpentry() even tries to return the proper page
level...
/me looks in disbelief in your direction...
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists