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:   Wed, 7 Sep 2022 09:22:45 -0700
From:   Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     dan.j.williams@intel.com, x86@kernel.org, nvdimm@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, dave.jiang@intel.com,
        Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com, vishal.l.verma@intel.com,
        ira.weiny@intel.com, a.manzanares@samsung.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] memregion: Add arch_flush_memregion() interface
Message-ID: <20220907162245.5ddexpmibjbanrho@offworld>
References: <20220829212918.4039240-1-dave@stgolabs.net>
 <YxjBSxtoav7PQVei@nazgul.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YxjBSxtoav7PQVei@nazgul.tnic>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20220429
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 07 Sep 2022, Borislav Petkov wrote:

>On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 02:29:18PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c b/arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c
>> index 1abd5438f126..18463cb704fb 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c
>> @@ -330,6 +330,20 @@ void arch_invalidate_pmem(void *addr, size_t size)
>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(arch_invalidate_pmem);
>>  #endif
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_MEMREGION_INVALIDATE
>> +bool arch_has_flush_memregion(void)
>> +{
>> +	return !cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR);
>
>This looks really weird. Why does this need to care about HV at all?

So the context here is:

e2efb6359e62 ("ACPICA: Avoid cache flush inside virtual machines")

>
>Does that nfit stuff even run in guests?

No, nor does cxl. This was mostly in general a precautionary check such
that the api is unavailable in VMs.

>
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(arch_has_flush_memregion);
>
>...
>
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(arch_flush_memregion);
>
>Why aren't those exports _GPL?

Fine by me.

Thanks,
Davidlohr