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:   Tue, 13 Aug 2019 00:49:20 -0700
From:   Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@gmail.com>
To:     "Kani, Toshi" <toshi.kani@hpe.com>
Cc:     "isaku.yamahata@gmail.com" <isaku.yamahata@gmail.com>,
        "bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "fei1.li@intel.com" <fei1.li@intel.com>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] x86/mtrr, pat: make PAT independent from MTRR
Message-ID: <20190813074920.GA24196@private.email.ne.jp>
References: <cover.1565300606.git.isaku.yamahata@gmail.com>
 <20190809070647.GA2152@zn.tnic>
 <3355d77da5e094ad1d3149b9236cdd204486fd69.camel@hpe.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3355d77da5e094ad1d3149b9236cdd204486fd69.camel@hpe.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 07:51:17PM +0000,
"Kani, Toshi" <toshi.kani@hpe.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 2019-08-09 at 09:06 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 08:54:17PM -0700, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> > > Make PAT(Page Attribute Table) independent from
> > > MTRR(Memory Type Range Register).
> > > Some environments (mainly virtual ones) support only PAT, but not MTRR
> > > because PAT replaces MTRR.
> > > It's tricky and no gain to support both MTRR and PAT except compatibility.
> > > So some VM technologies don't support MTRR, but only PAT.
> 
> I do not think it is technically correct on bare metal.  AFAIK, MTRR is
> still the only way to setup cache attribute in real-mode, which BIOS SMI
> handler relies on in SMM.

Then you're claiming if it's baremetal, both MTRR and PAT should be
enabled/disabled at the same time?


> > > This patch series makes PAT available on such environments without MTRR.
> > 
> > And this "justification" is not even trying. Which "VM technologies" are
> > those? Why do we care? What's the impact? Why do we want this?
> > 
> > You need to sell this properly.
> 
> Agreed.  If the situation is still the same, Xen does not support MTRR,
> and the kernel sets the PAT table to the BIOS hand-off state when MTRR
> is disabled.  The change below accommodated the fact that Xen hypervisor
> enables WC before hand-off, which is different from the default BIOS
> hand-off state.  The kernel does not support setting PAT when MTRR is
> disabled due to the dependency Isaku mentioned.
> 
> 
> https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1107094.html

Thanks for supplement.
In addition to Xen, KVM+qemu can enable/disable MTRR, PAT independently.
So user may want to disable MTRR to reduce attack surface.
ACRN doesn't support MTRR.

Let me include those description for next respin.
-- 
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@gmail.com>