[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87cz26jpuq.fsf@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2023 10:54:53 +0200
From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
To: Tianyu Lan <ltykernel@...il.com>, kys@...rosoft.com,
haiyangz@...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,
daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, arnd@...db.de,
michael.h.kelley@...rosoft.com
Cc: Tianyu Lan <tiala@...rosoft.com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] drivers: hv: Mark shared pages unencrypted in
SEV-SNP enlightened guest
Tianyu Lan <ltykernel@...il.com> writes:
> On 6/5/2023 8:54 PM, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>> @@ -402,7 +417,14 @@ int hv_common_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
>>>
>>> local_irq_restore(flags);
>>>
>>> - kfree(mem);
>>> + if (hv_isolation_type_en_snp()) {
>>> + ret = set_memory_encrypted((unsigned long)mem, pgcount);
>>> + if (ret)
>>> + pr_warn("Hyper-V: Failed to encrypt input arg on cpu%d: %d\n",
>>> + cpu, ret);
>>> + /* It's unsafe to free 'mem'. */
>>> + return 0;
>> Why is it unsafe to free 'mem' if ret == 0? Also, why don't we want to
>> proparate non-zero 'ret' from here to fail CPU offlining?
>>
>
> Based on Michael's patch the mem will not be freed during cpu offline.
> https://lwn.net/ml/linux-kernel/87cz2j5zrc.fsf@redhat.com/
> So I think it's unnessary to encrypt the mem again here.
Good, you can probably include Michael's patch in your next submission
then (unless it gets merged before that).
--
Vitaly
Powered by blists - more mailing lists