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: <20211005234459.430873-1-michael.roth@amd.com> <20211005234459.430873-3-michael.roth@amd.com>
 <CAL715W+-H7ZSQZeZmAbbJNGKaZCNqf4VdLismivxux=gerFuDw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20211021033723.tfnhazbnlz4z5czl@amd.com> <CAL715W+kJpnx5Jax2-vtFRDNrQFsc6+YT+q5ZkWbBM7gFVKjkg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL715W+kJpnx5Jax2-vtFRDNrQFsc6+YT+q5ZkWbBM7gFVKjkg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 1 Nov 2021 10:44:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL715WK2q0yfLJ-7AQ5stY5h6NfC7PXO7kunHmw=Rp_JMt7CVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 02/16] KVM: selftests: add hooks for managing encrypted
 guest memory
To:     Michael Roth <Michael.Roth@amd.com>
Cc:     linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86@kernel.org,
        Nathan Tempelman <natet@google.com>,
        Marc Orr <marcorr@google.com>,
        Steve Rutherford <srutherford@google.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com>,
        Varad Gautam <varad.gautam@suse.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>,
        Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@google.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 8:48 AM Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 8:46 PM Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 08:00:00AM -0700, Mingwei Zhang wrote:
> > > > +void vm_set_memory_encryption(struct kvm_vm *vm, bool enc_by_default, bool has_enc_bit,
> > > > +                             uint8_t enc_bit)
> > > > +{
> > > > +       vm->memcrypt.enabled = true;
> > > > +       vm->memcrypt.enc_by_default = enc_by_default;
> > > > +       vm->memcrypt.has_enc_bit = has_enc_bit;
> > > > +       vm->memcrypt.enc_bit = enc_bit;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +struct sparsebit *
> > > > +vm_get_encrypted_phy_pages(struct kvm_vm *vm, int slot, vm_paddr_t *gpa_start,
> > > > +                          uint64_t *size)
> > > > +{
> > > > +       struct userspace_mem_region *region;
> > > > +       struct sparsebit *encrypted_phy_pages;
> > > > +
> > > > +       if (!vm->memcrypt.enabled)
> > > > +               return NULL;
> > > > +
> > > > +       region = memslot2region(vm, slot);
> > > > +       if (!region)
> > > > +               return NULL;
> > > > +
> > > > +       encrypted_phy_pages = sparsebit_alloc();
> > > > +       sparsebit_copy(encrypted_phy_pages, region->encrypted_phy_pages);
> > >
> > > Do we have to make a copy for the sparsebit? Why not just return the
> > > pointer? By looking at your subsequent patches, I find that this data
> > > structure seems to be just read-only?
> >
> > Yes, it's only intended to be used for read access. But I'll if I can
> > enforce that without the need to use a copy.
> >
>
> Understood. Thanks for the clarification. Yeah, I think both making a
> copy and returning a const pointer should work. I will leave that to
> you then.
>
> Thanks.
> -Mingwei

Reviewed-by: Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@google.com>

Thanks.
-Mingwei