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:   Mon, 21 Nov 2022 14:50:36 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Michael Kelley <mikelley@microsoft.com>
Cc:     hpa@zytor.com, kys@microsoft.com, haiyangz@microsoft.com,
        wei.liu@kernel.org, decui@microsoft.com, luto@kernel.org,
        peterz@infradead.org, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com,
        kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, lpieralisi@kernel.org,
        robh@kernel.org, kw@linux.com, bhelgaas@google.com, arnd@arndb.de,
        hch@infradead.org, m.szyprowski@samsung.com, robin.murphy@arm.com,
        thomas.lendacky@amd.com, brijesh.singh@amd.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
        mingo@redhat.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
        Tianyu.Lan@microsoft.com, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com,
        sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com, ak@linux.intel.com,
        isaku.yamahata@intel.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com,
        jane.chu@oracle.com, seanjc@google.com, tony.luck@intel.com,
        x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        iommu@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [Patch v3 02/14] x86/ioapic: Gate decrypted mapping on
 cc_platform_has() attribute
Message-ID: <Y3uCLPInEaA0ufN4@zn.tnic>
References: <1668624097-14884-1-git-send-email-mikelley@microsoft.com>
 <1668624097-14884-3-git-send-email-mikelley@microsoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1668624097-14884-3-git-send-email-mikelley@microsoft.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 10:41:25AM -0800, Michael Kelley wrote:
> Current code always maps the IOAPIC as shared (decrypted) in a
> confidential VM. But Hyper-V guest VMs on AMD SEV-SNP with vTOM
> enabled use a paravisor running in VMPL0 to emulate the IOAPIC.

"IO-APIC" I guess, in all your text.

> In such a case, the IOAPIC must be accessed as private (encrypted).

So the condition for the IO-APIC is pretty specific but the naming
CC_ATTR_EMULATED_IOAPIC too generic. Other HVs emulate IO-APICs too,
right?

If you have to be precise, the proper check should be (pseudo code):

 if (cc_vendor(HYPERV) &&
     SNP enabled &&
     SNP features has vTOM &&
     paravisor in use)

so I guess you're probably better off calling it

  CC_ATTR_ACCESS_IOAPIC_ENCRYPTED

which then gets set on exactly those guests and nothing else.

I'd say.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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