[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ac5f0e24-cac8-828c-3b4b-995f77f81ce3@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2022 08:23:28 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: "Michael Kelley (LINUX)" <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>,
Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
"wei.liu@...nel.org" <wei.liu@...nel.org>,
Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
"luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"lpieralisi@...nel.org" <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
"robh@...nel.org" <robh@...nel.org>, "kw@...ux.com" <kw@...ux.com>,
"bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
"m.szyprowski@...sung.com" <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
"robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
"thomas.lendacky@....com" <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
"brijesh.singh@....com" <brijesh.singh@....com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Tianyu Lan <Tianyu.Lan@...rosoft.com>,
"kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
"sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com"
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"isaku.yamahata@...el.com" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
"jane.chu@...cle.com" <jane.chu@...cle.com>,
"seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"tony.luck@...el.com" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/12] x86/ioapic: Gate decrypted mapping on
cc_platform_has() attribute
On 11/11/22 20:48, Michael Kelley (LINUX) wrote:
> From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 4:22 PM
>> On 11/10/22 22:21, Michael Kelley wrote:
>>> * Ensure fixmaps for IOAPIC MMIO respect memory encryption pgprot
>>> * bits, just like normal ioremap():
>>> */
>>> - flags = pgprot_decrypted(flags);
>>> + if (!cc_platform_has(CC_ATTR_HAS_PARAVISOR))
>>> + flags = pgprot_decrypted(flags);
>> This begs the question whether *all* paravisors will want to avoid a
>> decrypted ioapic mapping. Is this _fundamental_ to paravisors, or it is
>> an implementation detail of this _individual_ paravisor?
> Hard to say. The paravisor that Hyper-V provides for use with the vTOM
> option in a SEV SNP VM is the only paravisor I've seen. At least as defined
> by Hyper-V and AMD SNP Virtual Machine Privilege Levels (VMPLs), the
> paravisor resides within the VM trust boundary. Anything that a paravisor
> emulates would be in the "private" (i.e., encrypted) memory so it can be
> accessed by both the guest OS and the paravisor. But nothing fundamental
> says that IOAPIC emulation *must* be done in the paravisor.
Please just make this check more specific. Either make this a specific
Hyper-V+SVM check, or rename it HAS_EMULATED_IOAPIC, like you were
thinking. If paravisors catch on and we end up with ten more of these
things across five different paravisors and see a pattern, *then* a
paravisor-specific one makes sense.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists