[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <276f30b6-d741-f88b-ae93-f3d6653498cb@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2021 08:30:40 -0500
From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
To: "hch@....de" <hch@....de>, Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>
Cc: Tianyu Lan <ltykernel@...il.com>,
KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>,
Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
"wei.liu@...nel.org" <wei.liu@...nel.org>,
Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"konrad.wilk@...cle.com" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
"boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com" <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
"jgross@...e.com" <jgross@...e.com>,
"sstabellini@...nel.org" <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
"jejb@...ux.ibm.com" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
"martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"m.szyprowski@...sung.com" <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
"robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
"brijesh.singh@....com" <brijesh.singh@....com>,
"ardb@...nel.org" <ardb@...nel.org>,
Tianyu Lan <Tianyu.Lan@...rosoft.com>,
"pgonda@...gle.com" <pgonda@...gle.com>,
"martin.b.radev@...il.com" <martin.b.radev@...il.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
"rppt@...nel.org" <rppt@...nel.org>,
"sfr@...b.auug.org.au" <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
"saravanand@...com" <saravanand@...com>,
"krish.sadhukhan@...cle.com" <krish.sadhukhan@...cle.com>,
"aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
"rientjes@...gle.com" <rientjes@...gle.com>,
"hannes@...xchg.org" <hannes@...xchg.org>,
"tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
vkuznets <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
"parri.andrea@...il.com" <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
"dave.hansen@...el.com" <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 12/13] HV/Netvsc: Add Isolation VM support for netvsc
driver
On 8/19/21 11:21 PM, hch@....de wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 06:14:51PM +0000, Michael Kelley wrote:
>>> + if (!pfns)
>>> + return NULL;
>>> +
>>> + for (i = 0; i < size / HV_HYP_PAGE_SIZE; i++)
>>> + pfns[i] = virt_to_hvpfn(buf + i * HV_HYP_PAGE_SIZE)
>>> + + (ms_hyperv.shared_gpa_boundary >> HV_HYP_PAGE_SHIFT);
>>> +
>>> + vaddr = vmap_pfn(pfns, size / HV_HYP_PAGE_SIZE, PAGE_KERNEL_IO);
>>> + kfree(pfns);
>>> +
>>> + return vaddr;
>>> +}
>>
>> This function appears to be a duplicate of hv_map_memory() in Patch 11 of this
>> series. Is it possible to structure things so there is only one implementation? In
>
> So right now it it identical, but there is an important difference:
> the swiotlb memory is physically contiguous to start with, so we can
> do the simple remap using vmap_range as suggested in the last mail.
> The cases here are pretty weird in that netvsc_remap_buf is called right
> after vzalloc. That is we create _two_ mappings in vmalloc space right
> after another, where the original one is just used for establishing the
> "GPADL handle" and freeing the memory. In other words, the obvious thing
> to do here would be to use a vmalloc variant that allows to take the
> shared_gpa_boundary into account when setting up the PTEs.
>
> And here is somthing I need help from the x86 experts: does the CPU
> actually care about this shared_gpa_boundary? Or does it just matter
> for the generated DMA address? Does somehow have a good pointer to
> how this mechanism works?
The CPU does care. Here's some info:
APM Volume 2, Section 15.36.8:
https://www.amd.com/system/files/TechDocs/24593.pdf
AMD SEV-SNP Whitepaper, Virtual Machine Privilege Levels (~page 14):
https://www.amd.com/system/files/TechDocs/SEV-SNP-strengthening-vm-isolation-with-integrity-protection-and-more.pdf
Thanks,
Tom
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists