[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BYAPR21MB1688B457CDC6B6B405FDD099D7859@BYAPR21MB1688.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2023 00:04:28 +0000
From: "Michael Kelley (LINUX)" <mikelley@...rosoft.com>
To: "Michael Kelley (LINUX)" <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: "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@....de" <hch@....de>,
"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>,
"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>,
"dan.j.williams@...el.com" <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 v6 06/13] x86/hyperv: Change vTOM handling to use standard
coco mechanisms
From: Michael Kelley (LINUX) <mikelley@...rosoft.com>
>
> From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 8:49 AM
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 02:43:06PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > Ok, lemme queue 1-2,4-6 as previously mentioned.
> >
> > With first six applied:
> >
> > arch/x86/coco/core.c:123:7: error: use of undeclared identifier 'sev_status'
> > if (sev_status & MSR_AMD64_SNP_VTOM)
> > ^
> > arch/x86/coco/core.c:139:7: error: use of undeclared identifier 'sev_status'
> > if (sev_status & MSR_AMD64_SNP_VTOM)
> > ^
> > 2 errors generated.
> > make[3]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:252: arch/x86/coco/core.o] Error 1
> > make[2]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:494: arch/x86/coco] Error 2
> > make[1]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:494: arch/x86] Error 2
> > make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
> > make: *** [Makefile:2025: .] Error 2
> >
> > compiler is:
> >
> > Debian clang version 14.0.6-2
> > Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
> > Thread model: posix
> > InstalledDir: /usr/bin
> >
> > .config is attached.
> >
>
> OK, I see what went wrong. I had tested with CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT=n
> and didn't see any compile problems. It turns out in my test, arch/x86/coco/core.c
> wasn't built at all because I did not also have TDX configured, so I didn't see
> any errors. But with CONFIG_INTEL_TDX_GUEST=y, coco/core.c gets built, and
> the error with undefined sev_status pops out.
>
> The straightforward fix is somewhat ugly. That's to put #ifdef
> CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT around the entire CC_VENDOR_AMD
> case in cc_mkenc() and in cc_mkdec(). Or put it just around the test of
> sev_status.
>
> Perhaps a cleaner way would be to have a "vendor_subtype" variable
> declared in arch/x86/coco/core.c and tested instead of sev_status.
> That subtype variable would be set from hv_vtom_init(), maybe via
> a separate accessor function. But didn't I recently see a patch that
> makes the existing "vendor" variable no longer static? In that case
> just setting vendor_subtype without the accessor function may be
> OK.
>
> What's your preference Boris? I can spin a v7 of the patch series
> that fixes this, and that squashes the last two patches of the series
> per Lorenz Pieralisi's comments.
>
Actually, a pretty clean approach is to #define sev_status 0ULL in
the #else /* !CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT */ half of
arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h. That's where the existing
extern statement is, and sme_me_mask is already handled that way.
I'll respin the patch set with that approach.
Michael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists