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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAPcyv4jQ=Fcga3jyUzthjPW9O962vhy3L5XUM6jqR5Z_Zq83LQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210608213527.739474-1-sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
 <CAPcyv4hoxc2+50EOFuq8NOa_CBFKX_A549Vw4U24V5SG25ftxQ@mail.gmail.com> <9d88cb37-f594-534a-ae2a-5a51f97db2a8@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <9d88cb37-f594-534a-ae2a-5a51f97db2a8@intel.com>
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Jun 2021 17:07:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4iAgXnMmg+Z1cqrgeQUcuQgXZ1WCtAaNmeHuLT_5QArUw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2-fix-v3 1/1] x86/tdx: Skip WBINVD instruction for TDX guest
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc:     Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@kernel.org>,
        Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 4:38 PM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/8/21 4:32 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> Persistent memory is also currently not supported. Another code
> >> path that uses WBINVD is the MTRR driver, but EPT/virtualization
> >> always disables MTRRs so those are not needed. This all implies
> >> WBINVD is not needed with current TDX.
> > Let's drop the last three paragraphs and just say something like:
> > "This is one of a series of patches to usages of wbinvd for protected
> > guests. For now this just addresses the one known path that TDX
> > executes, ACPI reboot. Its usage can be elided because FOO reason and
> > all the other ACPI_FLUSH_CPU_CACHE usages can be elided because BAR
> > reason"
>
> A better effort at transparency can be made here:
>
>         This patches the one WBINVD instance which has been encountered
>         in practice: ACPI reboot.  Assume no other instance will be
>         encountered.
>

That works too, but I assume if ACPI_FLUSH_CPU_CACHE() itself is going
to be changed rather than sprinkling protected_guest_has() checks in a
few places it will need to assert why changing all of those at once is
correct. Otherwise I expect Rafael to ask why this global change of
the ACPI_FLUSH_CPU_CACHE() policy is ok.