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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] drm/ttm, drm/vmwgfx: Correctly support support AMD
 memory encryption
To:     "Koenig, Christian" <Christian.Koenig@amd.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc:     dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        "pv-drivers@vmware.com" <pv-drivers@vmware.com>,
        VMware Graphics <linux-graphics-maintainer@vmware.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Lendacky, Thomas" <Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com>,
        Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@vmware.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
References: <20190903131504.18935-1-thomas_os@shipmail.org>
 <20190903131504.18935-4-thomas_os@shipmail.org>
 <b54bd492-9702-5ad7-95da-daf20918d3d9@intel.com>
 <CAKMK7uFv+poZq43as8XoQaSuoBZxCQ1p44VCmUUTXOXt4Y+Bjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <6d0fafcc-b596-481b-7b22-1f26f0c02c5c@intel.com>
 <bed2a2d9-17f0-24bd-9f4a-c7ee27f6106e@shipmail.org>
 <7fa3b178-b9b4-2df9-1eee-54e24d48342e@intel.com>
 <ba77601a-d726-49fa-0c88-3b02165a9a21@shipmail.org>
 <cfe46eda-66b5-b40d-6721-84e6e0e1f5de@amd.com>
 <94113acc-1f99-2386-1d42-4b9930b04f73@shipmail.org>
 <7eec2c11-d0d4-4c81-6ed2-d0932bf5af33@amd.com>
From:   =?UTF-8?Q?Thomas_Hellstr=c3=b6m_=28VMware=29?= 
        <thomas_os@shipmail.org>
Organization: VMware Inc.
Message-ID: <9ca29de8-0c9b-65b2-52e8-8668a1517ac5@shipmail.org>
Date:   Wed, 4 Sep 2019 14:35:11 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7eec2c11-d0d4-4c81-6ed2-d0932bf5af33@amd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 9/4/19 1:10 PM, Koenig, Christian wrote:
> Am 04.09.19 um 10:19 schrieb Thomas Hellström (VMware):
>> Hi, Christian,
>>
>> On 9/4/19 9:33 AM, Koenig, Christian wrote:
>>> Am 03.09.19 um 23:05 schrieb Thomas Hellström (VMware):
>>>> On 9/3/19 10:51 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>>>> On 9/3/19 1:36 PM, Thomas Hellström (VMware) wrote:
>>>>>> So the question here should really be, can we determine already at
>>>>>> mmap
>>>>>> time whether backing memory will be unencrypted and adjust the *real*
>>>>>> vma->vm_page_prot under the mmap_sem?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Possibly, but that requires populating the buffer with memory at mmap
>>>>>> time rather than at first fault time.
>>>>> I'm not connecting the dots.
>>>>>
>>>>> vma->vm_page_prot is used to create a VMA's PTEs regardless of if they
>>>>> are created at mmap() or fault time.  If we establish a good
>>>>> vma->vm_page_prot, can't we just use it forever for demand faults?
>>>> With SEV I think that we could possibly establish the encryption flags
>>>> at vma creation time. But thinking of it, it would actually break with
>>>> SME where buffer content can be moved between encrypted system memory
>>>> and unencrypted graphics card PCI memory behind user-space's back.
>>>> That would imply killing all user-space encrypted PTEs and at fault
>>>> time set up new ones pointing to unencrypted PCI memory..
>>> Well my problem is where do you see encrypted system memory here?
>>>
>>> At least for AMD GPUs all memory accessed must be unencrypted and that
>>> counts for both system as well as PCI memory.
>> We're talking SME now right?
>>
>> The current SME setup is that if a device's DMA mask says it's capable
>> of addressing the encryption bit, coherent memory will be encrypted.
>> The memory controllers will decrypt for the device on the fly.
>> Otherwise coherent memory will be decrypted.
>>
>>> So I don't get why we can't assume always unencrypted and keep it
>>> like that.
>> I see two reasons. First, it would break with a real device that
>> signals it's capable of addressing the encryption bit.
> Why? Because we don't use dma_mmap_coherent()?

Well, assuming always unencrypted would obviously break on a real device 
with encrypted coherent memory?

dma_mmap_coherent() would work from the encryption point of view 
(although I think it's currently buggy and will send out an RFC for what 
I believe is a fix for that).

>
> I've already talked with Christoph that we probably want to switch TTM
> over to using that instead to also get rid of the ttm_io_prot() hack.

OK, would that mean us ditching other memory modes completely? And 
on-the-fly caching transitions? or is it just for the special case of 
cached coherent memory? Do we need to cache the coherent kernel mappings 
in TTM as well, for ttm_bo_kmap()?

/Thomas

>
> Regards,
> Christian.
>
>> Second I can imagine unaccelerated setups (something like vkms using
>> prime feeding a VNC connection) where we actually want the TTM buffers
>> encrypted to protect data.
>>
>> But at least the latter reason is way far out in the future.
>>
>> So for me I'm ok with that if that works for you?
>>
>> /Thomas
>>
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Christian.
>>