Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:7420:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id hk32csp568793pxb; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 22:22:22 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyl2rso+TB/3973fOjDFyqa3EadGJCaJ35AhO7q/+WFjGGCZRC+B9dFixDCZPi/rJ5Ivtwz X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:1d0c:b0:4e1:9846:3f34 with SMTP id a12-20020a056a001d0c00b004e198463f34mr916016pfx.59.1644992542254; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 22:22:22 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1644992542; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=OziEvzqtzZdb4fEWcJ+ujCsyXKVXM/AS6gOmMJjCM9cTJgSNaijn9A2SlsWzraQTsk /v5kAU0UtmhcflELfBnypT0HqfTCIik4Tv6IPoSS06lmkVRrktQNVSCePm5iMk5cdtG2 trvx5xr8ZZR8RBfQvFvpAxxggyngTNdZCd9V2xDckO/z4oz2IdIvqRd9C1WxdgDT5LC0 SrUfg9ROy1Wwu9siMxbVRewMQw+CrNwLiPlmni0Lqv7oqEMJnjsGOOlgRFNPexi6AK9U hW2oWtXLfkSw1gsnOnvIwb7LFP8uQXU/vKeyywysdRE8ZFlq5yQBaxGUglCXwu1kithF OzUw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:dkim-signature; bh=I8T9H1MGgOXdv1kY3uN4GQyQDCOVlivV6rhTk17r6cs=; b=Ardx+6g2TyHIjLVUWuIV87yG/RthHX43m8HkM3DXNI8mWDsNj8zFmq6F78fAJOZuzL dMSMjetPzWn/8AdUK895hnEKEh/hyyGwrXLjuncCHS6YwFLPyqiOpcDfTizUMjkJXdu0 HJwPwmNRHmxnhNi9aaZ7uYwlFXVqLbcZpJPeEr3WuilBKoTv4c3VkNISWfYAI5gTTHNz XNz7iPVBH6y5Ws2//apbpnQpv8Ja0cf17d9Tnv5XCy/Nu8aTnaLFsmQT/ZfWsCbPK1VD 2TWwnuYiwGliEIxn8OHBkg8JaBKmEJBBvv/+d0t0FmZqxPjBn4lQPnJkk2fWdX8yKq9l p65A== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@intel.com header.s=Intel header.b="IL6/NkCW"; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=intel.com Return-Path: Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (lindbergh.monkeyblade.net. [2620:137:e000::1:18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id nl5si15493604pjb.47.2022.02.15.22.22.21 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 15 Feb 2022 22:22:22 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@intel.com header.s=Intel header.b="IL6/NkCW"; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=intel.com Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FBDA1AE2E4; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 22:20:13 -0800 (PST) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S241569AbiBOQ1j (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 15 Feb 2022 11:27:39 -0500 Received: from mxb-00190b01.gslb.pphosted.com ([23.128.96.19]:34692 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S241558AbiBOQ1Z (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Feb 2022 11:27:25 -0500 Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEE716BDDB for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 08:27:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1644942433; x=1676478433; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=FhUgSu8QDriqHaKgF3RSsaX1eOMu6Th4q4D3Ki12HOQ=; b=IL6/NkCWfuMMlWKFaDwipGZ7FZU6IJE4Rggi3SAymxwhvXou9JiTShK2 QzjSvTtGxUOquKXtFCjJPGIEF8xVbkpRKPqH/LCR+RLByQbDUNdFucLeP cbFVuQvmKHGKbs+Z4hYbWYqLRLFiZSqGs6S0Q0aFVdDuGmgmn4/2ezyOe 3E6pAzuAHYneXAKU2cVZArd3o9NFkXzmXKTUsshYjFYwnXkvUZdxSdn9K ra04DyydTVphQBV9QqcsCWjnJVRDboml99qg4xoigCrAwsU0hjf3AKCJO xcU6Y+2G0ifOoEImj4WaNHje8lADoR5M8cFxNDxcL31hCEVeFRuleHAb1 Q==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10258"; a="250128868" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.88,371,1635231600"; d="scan'208";a="250128868" Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Feb 2022 08:27:13 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.88,371,1635231600"; d="scan'208";a="502523569" Received: from black.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.28]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 15 Feb 2022 08:27:07 -0800 Received: by black.fi.intel.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A3748107; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 18:27:22 +0200 (EET) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 19:27:22 +0300 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" To: Tom Lendacky Cc: Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen , 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: [PATCHv2 22/29] x86/tdx: Make pages shared in ioremap() Message-ID: <20220215162722.cvzik5r57spr2krz@black.fi.intel.com> References: <20220124150215.36893-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20220124150215.36893-23-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <1d77e91c-e151-7846-6cd4-6264236ca5ae@intel.com> <20220214220926.fjwlyieatwjhcpij@black.fi.intel.com> <20220215154118.ldpvvk5seljntl44@black.fi.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 09:55:16AM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote: > On 2/15/22 09:41, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 08:49:34AM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote: > > > On 2/14/22 16:09, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 06:28:04PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 08:57:39AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > > > > > > We can surely *do* this with cc_something() helpers. It's just not as > > > > > > easy as making cc_set/cc_clear(). > > > > > > > > > > Sure, that's easy: cc_pgprot_{enc,dec}() or so. > > > > > > > > So, I've ended up with this in > > > > > > > > /* > > > > * Macros to add or remove encryption attribute > > > > */ > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_CC_PLATFORM > > > > pgprotval_t cc_enc(pgprotval_t protval); > > > > pgprotval_t cc_dec(pgprotval_t protval); > > > > #define pgprot_encrypted(prot) __pgprot(cc_enc(pgprot_val(prot))) > > > > #define pgprot_decrypted(prot) __pgprot(cc_dec(pgprot_val(prot))) > > > > #else > > > > #define pgprot_encrypted(prot) (prot) > > > > #define pgprot_decrypted(prot) (prot) > > > > #endif > > > > > > A couple of things. I think cc_pgprot_enc() and cc_pgprot_dec() would be > > > more descriptive/better names to use here. > > > > > > Also, can they be defined in include/linux/cc_platform.h (with two versions > > > based on CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_CC_PLATFORM) and have that included here? Or is > > > there some header file include issues when trying to include it? That would > > > clean this block up into just two lines. > > > > Well, pgprotval_t is x86-specific. It cannot be used in generic headers. > > Ah, right. > > > We can use u64 here instead. It is wider than pgprotval_t on 2-level > > paging x86, but should work. > > Hmm..., yeah. Maybe unsigned long? CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_CC_PLATFORM is X86_64 > only, so 2-level paging wouldn't be applicable when an unsigned long is > 64-bits? Hm. So for !CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_CC_PLATFORM it has to be define, if we would try static inline dummy instead it will break x86 PAE as upper bit get trancated when passed via helper. I donno. > I'll let the maintainers weigh in on that. > > > > > But with u64 as type, I'm not sure 'pgprot' in the name is jutified. > > Maybe cc_mask_{enc,dec}()? It just sounds like cc_{enc,dec}() is actually > performing encryption or decryption and can be confusing. cc_{enc,dec}_mask() sounds better to me. -- Kirill A. Shutemov