Date:   Wed, 5 Jan 2022 19:02:26 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
To:     Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, luto@kernel.org,
        peterz@infradead.org, sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com,
        aarcange@redhat.com, ak@linux.intel.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com,
        david@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, jgross@suse.com,
        jmattson@google.com, joro@8bytes.org, jpoimboe@redhat.com,
        knsathya@kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, sdeep@vmware.com,
        seanjc@google.com, tony.luck@intel.com, vkuznets@redhat.com,
        wanpengli@tencent.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/26] x86/tdx: Make pages shared in ioremap()
Message-ID: <20220105160226.c3fzhrymeacnzxjg@box.shutemov.name>
References: <20220103141705.6hqflhwykqmtfim6@black.fi.intel.com>
 <YdMIWAT42el4D6wJ@zn.tnic>
 <20220103151516.pfcz2pap5l7r2rzv@box.shutemov.name>
 <b4b54116-1cd7-468a-0889-d497268cbfb2@intel.com>
 <20220103181059.ui5eloufw5gsojcb@box.shutemov.name>
 <20220104191424.oly2gqm4ltzj5wo3@box.shutemov.name>
 <0e0c38e2-67ad-1f51-c44b-d3c3d505e40a@intel.com>
 <20220105003108.mr7zyd5oyaaxmnmv@box.shutemov.name>
 <50dfa0db-fcd1-3c54-d982-237d2c9df431@intel.com>
 <3fd5d9b4-87ac-4f3e-bb89-60813808389b@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3fd5d9b4-87ac-4f3e-bb89-60813808389b@amd.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 08:16:49AM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 1/4/22 6:43 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 1/4/22 4:31 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 04, 2022 at 12:36:06PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > > @@ -57,7 +58,6 @@ typedef struct { unsigned long iopte; }
> > > >   typedef struct { unsigned long pmd; } pmd_t;
> > > >   typedef struct { unsigned long pgd; } pgd_t;
> > > >   typedef struct { unsigned long ctxd; } ctxd_t;
> > > > -typedef struct { unsigned long pgprot; } pgprot_t;
> > > >   typedef struct { unsigned long iopgprot; } iopgprot_t;
> > > >   #define pte_val(x)	((x).pte)
> > > > @@ -85,7 +85,6 @@ typedef unsigned long iopte_t;
> > > >   typedef unsigned long pmd_t;
> > > >   typedef unsigned long pgd_t;
> > > >   typedef unsigned long ctxd_t;
> > > > -typedef unsigned long pgprot_t;
> > > >   typedef unsigned long iopgprot_t;
> > > >   #define pte_val(x)	(x)
> > > 
> > > Any arch that use STRICT_MM_TYPECHECKS hacks will get broken if compiled
> > > without the define (as sparc by default).
> > 
> > My read of STRICT_MM_TYPECHECKS was that "typedef unsigned long
> > pgprot_t" produces better code, but "typedef struct { unsigned long
> > pgprot; } pgprot_t;" produces better type checking.
> > 
> > I just compiled these patches on sparc with no issues.
> > 
> > ...
> > > Is it the way to go we want?
> > 
> > I _think_ this was all a result of some review feedback from Tom
> > Lendacky about where the encryption-modifying pgprot helpers got placed
> > in the code.  I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm not quite sure
> > that this is worth the trouble.
> > 
> > I'd be curious what Tom thinks now that he's gotten a peek at what it's
> > going to take to address his concerns.
> 
> I have vague memories of pgprot_t and what a pain it could be, which is why
> my feedback suggested putting it in cc_platform.c, but said there might be
> issues :)
> 
> I'm fine with it living somewhere else, just thought it would be nice to
> have everything consolidated, if possible.

In this case I would rather leave it in <asm/pgtable.h>. We still can
rename it to cc_pgprot_decrypted()/cc_pgprot_encrypted().

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov