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;
Date:   Sat, 13 Aug 2022 21:40:14 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/sev: Put PSC struct on the stack in prep for
 unaccepted memory support
Message-ID: <Yvf+HnofHZ3rZ+yL@zn.tnic>
References: <20220614120231.48165-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <cover.1659978985.git.thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
 <21d5d55640ee1c5d66501b9398858b6a6bd6546f.1659978985.git.thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
 <YvZPoEm6PSeoflAz@zn.tnic>
 <6d9d433f-779d-7531-02b5-382796acceef@amd.com>
 <YvZkpYRfrgPLLoJV@zn.tnic>
 <fc48ce75-7a4c-4804-92ce-71f63c2db5ea@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <fc48ce75-7a4c-4804-92ce-71f63c2db5ea@amd.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 09:51:41AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 8/12/22 09:33, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 09:11:25AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > > There was a whole discussion on this
> > 
> > Pointer to it?
> 
> It starts here: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/658c455c40e8950cb046dd885dd19dc1c52d060a.1659103274.git.thomas.lendacky@amd.com/

So how come none of the rationale for the on-stack decision vs a single
buffer with a spinlock protection hasn't made it to this patch?

We need to have the reason why this thing is changed documented
somewhere.

> > So smaller, on-stack PSC but lockless is still better than a bigger one
> > but with synchronized accesses to it?

That thing.

That decision for on-stack buffer needs explaining why.

> > > Well when we don't know which GHCB is in use, using that reserved area in
> > > the GHCB doesn't help.
> > 
> > What do you mean?
> > 
> > The one which you read with
> > 
> > 	data = this_cpu_read(runtime_data);
> 
> Memory acceptance is called before the per-CPU GHCBs have been allocated
> and so you would be actually be using early boot GHCB. And that is decided
> based on the #VC handler that is invoked - but in this case we're not
> coming through the #VC handler to accept memory.

But then ghcb_percpu_ready needs to be a per-CPU variable too! Because
it is set right after snp_register_per_cpu_ghcb() which works on the
*per-CPU* GHCB.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette