Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
References: <20190712053631.9814-1-bauerman@linux.ibm.com> <20190712053631.9814-4-bauerman@linux.ibm.com> <20190712150912.3097215e.pasic@linux.ibm.com> <87tvbqgboc.fsf@morokweng.localdomain> <20190715160317.7e3dfb33.pasic@linux.ibm.com> <20190715143039.GA6892@lst.de>
User-agent: mu4e 1.2.0; emacs 26.2
From:   Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc:     Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
        Mike Anderson <andmike@linux.ibm.com>,
        Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>,
        "Lendacky\, Thomas" <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] fs/core/vmcore: Move sev_active() reference to x86 arch code
In-reply-to: <20190715143039.GA6892@lst.de>
Date:   Mon, 15 Jul 2019 17:14:04 -0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <875zo3njhv.fsf@morokweng.localdomain>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> writes:

> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 04:03:17PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
>> > I thought about that but couldn't put my finger on a general concept.
>> > Is it "guest with memory inaccessible to the host"?
>> >
>>
>> Well, force_dma_unencrypted() is a much better name thatn sev_active():
>> s390 has no AMD SEV, that is sure, but for virtio to work we do need to
>> make our dma accessible to the hypervisor. Yes, your "guest with memory
>> inaccessible to the host" shows into the right direction IMHO.
>> Unfortunately I don't have too many cycles to spend on this right now.
>
> In x86 it means that we need to remove dma encryption using
> set_memory_decrypted before using it for DMA purposes.  In the SEV
> case that seems to be so that the hypervisor can access it, in the SME
> case that Tom just fixes it is because there is an encrypted bit set
> in the physical address, and if the device doesn't support a large
> enough DMA address the direct mapping code has to encrypt the pages
> used for the contigous allocation.
>
>> Being on cc for your patch made me realize that things got broken on
>> s390. Thanks! I've sent out a patch that fixes protvirt, but we are going
>> to benefit from your cleanups. I think with your cleanups and that patch
>> of mine both sev_active() and sme_active() can be removed. Feel free to
>> do so. If not, I can attend to it as well.
>
> Yes, I think with the dma-mapping fix and this series sme_active and
> sev_active should be gone from common code.  We should also be able
> to remove the exports x86 has for them.
>
> I'll wait a few days and will then feed the dma-mapping fix to Linus,
> it might make sense to either rebase Thiagos series on top of the
> dma-mapping for-next branch, or wait a few days before reposting.

I'll rebase on top of dma-mapping/for-next and do the break up of patch
2 that you mentioned as well.

--
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center