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 18:47:06 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     "Michael Kelley (LINUX)" <mikelley@microsoft.com>
Cc:     "thomas.lendacky@amd.com" <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        "hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>, KY Srinivasan <kys@microsoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@microsoft.com>,
        "wei.liu@kernel.org" <wei.liu@kernel.org>,
        Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com>,
        "luto@kernel.org" <luto@kernel.org>,
        "peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        "edumazet@google.com" <edumazet@google.com>,
        "kuba@kernel.org" <kuba@kernel.org>,
        "pabeni@redhat.com" <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        "lpieralisi@kernel.org" <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
        "robh@kernel.org" <robh@kernel.org>, "kw@linux.com" <kw@linux.com>,
        "bhelgaas@google.com" <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        "arnd@arndb.de" <arnd@arndb.de>,
        "hch@infradead.org" <hch@infradead.org>,
        "m.szyprowski@samsung.com" <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        "robin.murphy@arm.com" <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        "brijesh.singh@amd.com" <brijesh.singh@amd.com>,
        "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Tianyu Lan <Tianyu.Lan@microsoft.com>,
        "kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        "sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
        "ak@linux.intel.com" <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        "isaku.yamahata@intel.com" <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>,
        "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        "jane.chu@oracle.com" <jane.chu@oracle.com>,
        "seanjc@google.com" <seanjc@google.com>,
        "tony.luck@intel.com" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        "iommu@lists.linux.dev" <iommu@lists.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [Patch v3 07/14] x86/hyperv: Change vTOM handling to use
 standard coco mechanisms
Message-ID: <Y4ZFmktxPlEjyoeR@zn.tnic>
References: <BYAPR21MB16886FF8B35F51964A515CD5D70C9@BYAPR21MB1688.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
 <BYAPR21MB1688AF2F106CDC14E4F97DB4D7139@BYAPR21MB1688.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
 <Y4Ti4UTBRGmbi0hD@zn.tnic>
 <BYAPR21MB1688466C7766148C6B3B4684D7139@BYAPR21MB1688.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
 <Y4Tu1tx6E1CfnrJi@zn.tnic>
 <BYAPR21MB1688BCC5DF4636DBF4DEA525D7139@BYAPR21MB1688.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
 <Y4USb2niHHicZLCY@zn.tnic>
 <BYAPR21MB16886FF5A63334994476B6ADD7129@BYAPR21MB1688.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
 <Y4XFjqEATqOgEnR6@zn.tnic>
 <BYAPR21MB1688D73FBBF41B6E21265DA3D7129@BYAPR21MB1688.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR21MB1688D73FBBF41B6E21265DA3D7129@BYAPR21MB1688.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 03:49:06PM +0000, Michael Kelley (LINUX) wrote:
> But it turns out that AMD really has two fairly different schemes:
> the C-bit scheme and the vTOM scheme.

Except it doesn't:

"In the VMSA of an SNP-active guest, the VIRTUAL_TOM field designates
a 2MB aligned guest physical address called the virtual top of memory.
When bit 1 (vTOM) of SEV_FEATURES is set in the VMSA of an SNP-active
VM, the VIRTUAL_TOM..."

So SEV_FEATURES[1] is vTOM and it is part of SNP.

Why do you keep harping on this being something else is beyond me...

I already pointed you to the patch which adds this along with the other
SEV_FEATURES.

> The details of these two AMD schemes are pretty different. vTOM is
> *not* just a minor option on the C-bit scheme. It's an either/or -- a
> guest VM is either doing the C-bit scheme or the vTOM scheme, not some
> combination. Linux code in coco/core.c could choose to treat C-bit and
> vTOM as two sub-schemes under CC_VENDOR_AMD, but that makes the code a
> bit messy because we end up with "if" statements to figure out whether
> to do things the C-bit way or the vTOM way.

Are you saying that that:

	if (cc_vendor == CC_VENDOR_AMD &&
	    sev_features & MSR_AMD64_SNP_VTOM_ENABLED)

is messy? Why?

We will have to support vTOM sooner or later.

> Or we could model the two AMD schemes as two different vendors,
> which is what I'm suggesting.  Doing so recognizes that the two schemes
> are fairly disjoint, and it makes the code cleaner.

How is that any different from the above check?

You *need* some sort of a check to differentiate between the two anyway.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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