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;
Date:   Wed, 24 Jul 2019 21:40:15 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
To:     "Lendacky, Thomas" <Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com>
Cc:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        "iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Lianbo Jiang <lijiang@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma-direct: Force unencrypted DMA under SME for certain
 DMA masks
Message-ID: <20190724184015.ye6gjoikowiyh63f@box>
References: <10b83d9ff31bca88e94da2ff34e30619eb396078.1562785123.git.thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
 <20190724155530.hlingpcirjcf2ljg@box>
 <acee0a74-77fc-9c81-087b-ce55abf87bd4@amd.com>
 <a89e7574-096d-9105-45ff-34bbb74918a5@arm.com>
 <c4110c6b-686c-7e77-fedc-33782e5b3e50@amd.com>
 <20190724181139.yebja5yflzjgfxlx@box>
 <9f9bfd05-0010-9050-20f0-8c89b2f039ef@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <9f9bfd05-0010-9050-20f0-8c89b2f039ef@amd.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 06:30:21PM +0000, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
> On 7/24/19 1:11 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 05:34:26PM +0000, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
> >> On 7/24/19 12:06 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
> >>> On 24/07/2019 17:42, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
> >>>> On 7/24/19 10:55 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 07:01:19PM +0000, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
> >>>>>> @@ -351,6 +355,32 @@ bool sev_active(void)
> >>>>>> ? }
> >>>>>> ? EXPORT_SYMBOL(sev_active);
> >>>>>> ? +/* Override for DMA direct allocation check -
> >>>>>> ARCH_HAS_FORCE_DMA_UNENCRYPTED */
> >>>>>> +bool force_dma_unencrypted(struct device *dev)
> >>>>>> +{
> >>>>>> +??? /*
> >>>>>> +???? * For SEV, all DMA must be to unencrypted addresses.
> >>>>>> +???? */
> >>>>>> +??? if (sev_active())
> >>>>>> +??????? return true;
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +??? /*
> >>>>>> +???? * For SME, all DMA must be to unencrypted addresses if the
> >>>>>> +???? * device does not support DMA to addresses that include the
> >>>>>> +???? * encryption mask.
> >>>>>> +???? */
> >>>>>> +??? if (sme_active()) {
> >>>>>> +??????? u64 dma_enc_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(__ffs64(sme_me_mask));
> >>>>>> +??????? u64 dma_dev_mask = min_not_zero(dev->coherent_dma_mask,
> >>>>>> +??????????????????????? dev->bus_dma_mask);
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +??????? if (dma_dev_mask <= dma_enc_mask)
> >>>>>> +??????????? return true;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hm. What is wrong with the dev mask being equal to enc mask? IIUC, it
> >>>>> means that device mask is wide enough to cover encryption bit, doesn't it?
> >>>>
> >>>> Not really...? it's the way DMA_BIT_MASK works vs bit numbering. Let's say
> >>>> that sme_me_mask has bit 47 set. __ffs64 returns 47 and DMA_BIT_MASK(47)
> >>>> will generate a mask without bit 47 set (0x7fffffffffff). So the check
> >>>> will catch anything that does not support at least 48-bit DMA.
> >>>
> >>> Couldn't that be expressed as just:
> >>>
> >>> ????if (sme_me_mask & dma_dev_mask == sme_me_mask)
> >>
> >> Actually !=, but yes, it could have been done like that, I just didn't
> >> think of it.
> > 
> > I'm looking into generalizing the check to cover MKTME.
> > 
> > Leaving	off the Kconfig changes and moving the check to other file, doest
> > the change below look reasonable to you. It's only build tested so far.
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c b/arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c
> > index fece30ca8b0c..6c86adcd02da 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c
> > @@ -355,6 +355,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(sev_active);
> >  /* Override for DMA direct allocation check - ARCH_HAS_FORCE_DMA_UNENCRYPTED */
> >  bool force_dma_unencrypted(struct device *dev)
> >  {
> > +	u64 dma_enc_mask;
> > +
> >  	/*
> >  	 * For SEV, all DMA must be to unencrypted addresses.
> >  	 */
> > @@ -362,18 +364,20 @@ bool force_dma_unencrypted(struct device *dev)
> >  		return true;
> >  
> >  	/*
> > -	 * For SME, all DMA must be to unencrypted addresses if the
> > -	 * device does not support DMA to addresses that include the
> > -	 * encryption mask.
> > +	 * For SME and MKTME, all DMA must be to unencrypted addresses if the
> > +	 * device does not support DMA to addresses that include the encryption
> > +	 * mask.
> >  	 */
> > -	if (sme_active()) {
> > -		u64 dma_enc_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(__ffs64(sme_me_mask));
> > -		u64 dma_dev_mask = min_not_zero(dev->coherent_dma_mask,
> > -						dev->bus_dma_mask);
> > +	if (!sme_active() && !mktme_enabled())
> > +		return false;
> >  
> > -		if (dma_dev_mask <= dma_enc_mask)
> > -			return true;
> > -	}
> > +	dma_enc_mask = sme_me_mask | mktme_keyid_mask();
> > +
> > +	if (dev->coherent_dma_mask && (dev->coherent_dma_mask & dma_enc_mask) != dma_enc_mask)
> > +		return true;
> > +
> > +	if (dev->bus_dma_mask && (dev->bus_dma_mask & dma_enc_mask) != dma_enc_mask)
> > +		return true;
> 
> Do you want to err on the side of caution and return true if both masks
> are zero? You could do the min_not_zero step and then return true if the
> result is zero. Then just make the one comparison against dma_enc_mask.

Something like this?

diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c b/arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c
index fece30ca8b0c..173d68b08c55 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c
@@ -355,6 +355,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(sev_active);
 /* Override for DMA direct allocation check - ARCH_HAS_FORCE_DMA_UNENCRYPTED */
 bool force_dma_unencrypted(struct device *dev)
 {
+	u64 dma_enc_mask, dma_dev_mask;
+
 	/*
 	 * For SEV, all DMA must be to unencrypted addresses.
 	 */
@@ -362,20 +364,17 @@ bool force_dma_unencrypted(struct device *dev)
 		return true;
 
 	/*
-	 * For SME, all DMA must be to unencrypted addresses if the
-	 * device does not support DMA to addresses that include the
-	 * encryption mask.
+	 * For SME and MKTME, all DMA must be to unencrypted addresses if the
+	 * device does not support DMA to addresses that include the encryption
+	 * mask.
 	 */
-	if (sme_active()) {
-		u64 dma_enc_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(__ffs64(sme_me_mask));
-		u64 dma_dev_mask = min_not_zero(dev->coherent_dma_mask,
-						dev->bus_dma_mask);
+	if (!sme_active() && !mktme_enabled())
+		return false;
 
-		if (dma_dev_mask <= dma_enc_mask)
-			return true;
-	}
+	dma_enc_mask = sme_me_mask | mktme_keyid_mask();
+	dma_dev_mask = min_not_zero(dev->coherent_dma_mask, dev->bus_dma_mask);
 
-	return false;
+	return (dma_dev_mask & dma_enc_mask) != dma_enc_mask;
 }
 
 /* Architecture __weak replacement functions */
-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov