Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 17 Mar 2021 14:19:27 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>,
        Peter Gonda <pgonda@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/cpu/AMD: Adjust x86_phys_bits to account for reduced
 PA in SEV-* guests
Message-ID: <YFJyX/MludiiS+dN@google.com>
References: <20210317183243.2904919-1-seanjc@google.com>
 <20210317191132.GD25069@zn.tnic>
 <YFJbzIrGLXu2UsFv@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YFJbzIrGLXu2UsFv@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > IOW, you have c_bit so your valid address space is [0 .. c_bit-1] no?
> 
> I haven't found anything in the GHCB that dictates that MAXPHYADDR == C_BIT-1,
> or more specifically that MAXPHYADDR == C_BIT - PhysAddrReduction.  E.g. AFAICT,
> a VMM could do C_BIT=47, MAXPHYADDR=36, PhysAddrReduction=0, and that would be
> allowed by the GHCB.
> 
> Forcing "c->x86_phys_bits = c_bit - 1" doesn't seem like it would break anything,
> but it's also technically wrong.

On the other hand, "C_BIT=47, MAXPHYADDR=36, PhysAddrReduction=0" would mean the
C-bit is an illegal PA bit from the guest's perspective.  That's rather
nonsensical, but also not technically disallowed by the APM or GHCB specs.