Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of amd.com designates
 165.204.84.17 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=165.204.84.17; helo=SATLEXMB04.amd.com;
Date:   Thu, 3 Mar 2022 18:31:57 -0600
From:   Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
CC:     Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>, <x86@kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>, <platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-coco@lists.linux.dev>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        "Vitaly Kuznetsov" <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        "Andy Lutomirski" <luto@kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Sergio Lopez <slp@redhat.com>, Peter Gonda <pgonda@google.com>,
        "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Dov Murik <dovmurik@linux.ibm.com>,
        Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum <tobin@ibm.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>,
        <brijesh.ksingh@gmail.com>, <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        <marcorr@google.com>, <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 39/45] x86/sev: Use firmware-validated CPUID for
 SEV-SNP guests
Message-ID: <20220304003157.diqytybw6gpwn5sa@amd.com>
References: <20220224165625.2175020-1-brijesh.singh@amd.com>
 <20220224165625.2175020-40-brijesh.singh@amd.com>
 <YiCrp61CoqJUXm5q@nazgul.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YiCrp61CoqJUXm5q@nazgul.tnic>
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Mar 2022 00:32:58.3066
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 64e58e9c-e7f9-47ec-c3be-08d9fd76885a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 3dd8961f-e488-4e60-8e11-a82d994e183d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=3dd8961f-e488-4e60-8e11-a82d994e183d;Ip=[165.204.84.17];Helo=[SATLEXMB04.amd.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: CO1NAM11FT027.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BL1PR12MB5802
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
        DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
        RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE
        autolearn=ham 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: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 12:51:20PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 10:56:19AM -0600, Brijesh Singh wrote:
> > Also add an "sev_debug" kernel command-line parameter that will be used
> > (initially) to dump the CPUID table for debugging/analysis.
> 
> No, not "sev_debug" - "sev=debug".
> 
> I'm pretty sure there will be need for other SEV-specific cmdline
> options so this thing should be a set, i.e.,
> 	"sev=(option1,option2?,option3?,...)"
> 
> etc.
> 
> See mcheck_enable() and the comment above it for an example.

If I do it the mce_check() way it ends up looking something like the
below, is that what you add in mind?

In that case it seems to expect "mce=option1 mce=option2" etc. I could
open-code a parser to handle multiple options like sev=option1,option2
etc., but wanted to check with you first.

Also, should I go ahead and introduce struct sev_options now, or
just use a regular bool until more options are added later?

Thanks!

struct sev_options {
       bool debug;
};

static struct sev_options sev_cmdline_opts;

...

static int __init process_sev_options(char *str)
{
       if ((*str) == '=')
               str++;

       if (!strcmp(str, "debug")) {
               sev_cmdline_opts.debug = true;
       } else {
               pr_info("SEV command-line option '%s' was not ecognized\n", str);
               return 1;
       }

       return 0;
}
__setup("sev", process_sev_options);

static int __init report_cpuid_table(void)
{
    ...
    if (sev_cmdline_opts.debug)
        dump_cpuid_table();
}
arch_initcall(report_cpuid_table)

> 
> -- 
> Regards/Gruss,
>     Boris.
> 
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpeople.kernel.org%2Ftglx%2Fnotes-about-netiquette&amp;data=04%7C01%7CMichael.Roth%40amd.com%7C98ed7057691e4faf205e08d9fd0c2768%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637819050942268665%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&amp;sdata=SxTMowEey9CFaqlUHfWKVuEqThTEGktHAO3JgQIttRE%3D&amp;reserved=0