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;
Date:   Tue, 22 Feb 2022 01:28:56 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc:     tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de,
        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: [PATCHv3 02/32] x86/coco: Add API to handle encryption mask
Message-ID: <20220221222856.c6b74b3n3fwqe6vy@black.fi.intel.com>
References: <20220218161718.67148-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <20220218161718.67148-3-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <66fcd7e7-deb6-f27e-9fc6-33293ce04f16@intel.com>
 <20220218213300.2bs4t3admhozonaq@black.fi.intel.com>
 <7ebd6ba1-85a4-6fee-c897-22ed108ac8b7@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7ebd6ba1-85a4-6fee-c897-22ed108ac8b7@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 11:28:16AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> I'm just a bit confused why *this* was chosen as the cc_whatever() hook.
>  Just like the mask function, it has one spot where it gets used:
> 
> +#define pgprot_encrypted(prot)	__pgprot(cc_mkenc(pgprot_val(prot)))
> +#define pgprot_decrypted(prot)	__pgprot(cc_mkdec(pgprot_val(prot)))
> 
> So, why bother having another level of abstraction?
> 
> Why don't we just have:
> 
> 	pgprot_t cc_mkenc(pgprot prot)
> 	pgprot_t cc_mkenc(pgprot prot)
> 
> and *no* pgprot_{en,de}crypted()?

Okay. Let me try this.

> >>> +out:
> >>>  	physical_mask &= ~sme_me_mask;
> >>> +	if (sme_me_mask)
> >>> +		cc_init(CC_VENDOR_AMD, sme_me_mask);
> >>>  }
> >>
> >> I don't think you need to mop it up here, but where does this leave
> >> sme_me_mask?
> > 
> > I think sme_me_mask still can be useful to indicate that the code is only
> > relevant for AMD context.
> 
> Shouldn't we be able to tell that because something is in an
> AMD-specific file, function or #ifdef?

Sure. But for some code it is not immidiately obvious that it is
AMD-specific. Like from file name alone, mem_encrypt_identity.c doesn't
look like it is only AMD thing.

Anyway, I think getting rid of sme_me_mask is out of scope for the
patchset.

> Is there ever a time where sme_me_mask is populated by cc_mask is not?

Yes. Decompression code. (I know it doesn't affect bottom line much).

> This seems like it is just making a copy of sme_me_mask.
> 
> sme_me_mask does look quite AMD-specialized, like its assembly
> manipulation.  Even if it's just a copy of cc_mask, it would be nice to
> call that out so the relationship is crystal clear.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov