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:   Tue, 29 Nov 2022 16:22:31 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Tianyu Lan <ltykernel@gmail.com>
Cc:     luto@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
        dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com,
        seanjc@google.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, jgross@suse.com,
        tiala@microsoft.com, kirill@shutemov.name,
        jiangshan.ljs@antgroup.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        ashish.kalra@amd.com, srutherford@google.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, anshuman.khandual@arm.com,
        pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com, adrian.hunter@intel.com,
        daniel.sneddon@linux.intel.com, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com,
        sandipan.das@amd.com, ray.huang@amd.com, brijesh.singh@amd.com,
        michael.roth@amd.com, thomas.lendacky@amd.com,
        venu.busireddy@oracle.com, sterritt@google.com,
        tony.luck@intel.com, samitolvanen@google.com, fenghua.yu@intel.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V2 01/18] x86/sev: Pvalidate memory gab for
 decompressing kernel
Message-ID: <Y4Yjt0rOzsSoosEj@zn.tnic>
References: <20221119034633.1728632-1-ltykernel@gmail.com>
 <20221119034633.1728632-2-ltykernel@gmail.com>
 <Y4YBfk3lyUJie4bR@zn.tnic>
 <6b3bdbbd-d381-3e52-57ec-729c8ab2d042@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6b3bdbbd-d381-3e52-57ec-729c8ab2d042@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 10:42:48PM +0800, Tianyu Lan wrote:
> Thanks for your review. sev_snp_enabled() is used after sev_status
> was initialized in sev_enable() while pvalidate_for_startup_ 64() is
> called before sev_enable().

Then you're going to have to change the code so that sev_status is
initialized before you need it. And not break others in the process.

And lemme save you some time - I won't accept sloppy code. You need to
integrate the functionality you need in the code paths properly - not
bolt it on in complete disregard of the flow just because it is easier.

> This is for Linux direct boot mode and so it needs to do such check
> here.

I don't know what "Linux direct boot mode" is so until you define it
properly and explain everything in detail, this is not going anywhere.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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