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;
Message-ID: <2803e5d6-58bc-57f1-0721-226333238883@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Jun 2023 16:16:03 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.2
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] drivers: hv: Mark shared pages unencrypted in SEV-SNP
 enlightened guest
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>, kys@microsoft.com,
        haiyangz@microsoft.com, wei.liu@kernel.org, decui@microsoft.com,
        tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de,
        dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com,
        daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, arnd@arndb.de,
        michael.h.kelley@microsoft.com
Cc:     Tianyu Lan <tiala@microsoft.com>, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20230601151624.1757616-1-ltykernel@gmail.com>
 <20230601151624.1757616-5-ltykernel@gmail.com> <87zg5ejchp.fsf@redhat.com>
From:   Tianyu Lan <ltykernel@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <87zg5ejchp.fsf@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 6/5/2023 8:54 PM, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> @@ -402,7 +417,14 @@ int hv_common_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
>>   
>>   	local_irq_restore(flags);
>>   
>> -	kfree(mem);
>> +	if (hv_isolation_type_en_snp()) {
>> +		ret = set_memory_encrypted((unsigned long)mem, pgcount);
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			pr_warn("Hyper-V: Failed to encrypt input arg on cpu%d: %d\n",
>> +				cpu, ret);
>> +		/* It's unsafe to free 'mem'. */
>> +		return 0;
> Why is it unsafe to free 'mem' if ret == 0? Also, why don't we want to
> proparate non-zero 'ret' from here to fail CPU offlining?
> 

Based on Michael's patch the mem will not be freed during cpu offline.
https://lwn.net/ml/linux-kernel/87cz2j5zrc.fsf@redhat.com/
So I think it's unnessary to encrypt the mem again here.