Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-28336-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <ZZ7YuEexYSaZYmLK@tassilo> <20240111223650.3502633-1-kevinloughlin@google.com>
 <20240112121725.3amxlumpifhagamb@box> <CAGdbjmLeyPhYfjVHPRa8LgNYjt9-rOPiyCodHoQOkEh9iQhjBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240115101239.nab725vuazvutgw6@box.shutemov.name>
In-Reply-To: <20240115101239.nab725vuazvutgw6@box.shutemov.name>
From: Kevin Loughlin <kevinloughlin@google.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 14:13:24 -0800
Message-ID: <CAGdbjmLrH_fZMS6pCX5pNKCJ2jLm1xAcJkHv5R4Z7MycvhbR5A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] x86/sev: enforce RIP-relative accesses in early
 SEV/SME code
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, 
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, x86@kernel.org, 
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, 
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>, 
	Bill Wendling <morbo@google.com>, Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com>, 
	Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>, Michael Kelley <mikelley@microsoft.com>, 
	Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@amd.com>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, 
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Steve Rutherford <srutherford@google.com>, 
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>, 
	Hou Wenlong <houwenlong.hwl@antgroup.com>, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com>, 
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>, Yuntao Wang <ytcoode@gmail.com>, 
	Wang Jinchao <wangjinchao@xfusion.com>, David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>, 
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>, 
	Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>, 
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>, Dionna Glaze <dionnaglaze@google.com>, 
	Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>, Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev, 
	linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, Ashish Kalra <ashish.kalra@amd.com>, 
	Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>, Adam Dunlap <acdunlap@google.com>, 
	Peter Gonda <pgonda@google.com>, Jacob Xu <jacobhxu@google.com>, 
	Sidharth Telang <sidtelang@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 2:12=E2=80=AFAM Kirill A. Shutemov
<kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 10:29:36AM -0800, Kevin Loughlin wrote:
> >
> > Per my tests, yes we can; I replaced the fixup_*() functions with
> > GET_RIP_RELATIVE_PTR()/PTR_TO_RIP_RELATIVE_PTR(), and guests with and
> > without SEV, SEV-ES, and SEV-SNP all successfully booted under both
> > clang and gcc builds.
>
> BTW, do we need both macros? Caller can do &var, right?

While I don't think the caller doing "&var" would work without passing
it as a separate argument like `GET_RIP_RELATIVE_PTR(var, &var)` (as
we would still need the original var's string name in the macro for
the inline assembly `#var(%%rip)`), we should nonetheless be able to
merge both into a single macro with one "var" argument. Specifically,
the only current difference between the macros is the input operand
constraint, and GET_RIP_RELATIVE_PTR()'s constraint will work for
both. I will make this change in v3.

> If we are okay with single macro, maybe rename it to RIP_RELATIVE_PTR().

With the merge into a single macro (and upon thinking about the
macro's behavior), I have a slight preference for
`RIP_RELATIVE_ADDR()` in v3 because it makes it clearer that the macro
behaves like the address-of operator "&" (just guaranteeing the use of
RIP-relative addressing to obtain the address). However, I'm happy to
go with RIP_RELATIVE_PTR() if you feel that's better.

> One other thing: I see you sprinkle casts to for every use of the macros.
> But why? void* can cast to any other pointer without explicit casting.

You're right; the casting is unnecessary. I'll eliminate it in v3. Thanks.

> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 4:17=E2=80=AFAM Kirill A. Shutemov
> > <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Also, is there any reason why GET_RIP_RELATIVE_PTR() and
> > > PTR_TO_RIP_RELATIVE_PTR() have to be macros? Inline functions would b=
e
> > > cleaner.
> >
> > I used macros because we need to use both the global variable itself
> > and the global variable's string name (obtained via #var in the macro)
> > in the inline assembly. As a secondary reason, the macro also avoids
> > the need to provide separate functions for each type of variable for
> > which we'd like to get RIP-relative pointers (ex: u64, unsigned int,
> > unsigned long, etc.).
>
> If we do it only on pointers, wouldn't void * -> void * be enough?

Only using pointers would indeed eliminate the secondary factor as a
reason to use macros. However, the primary motivation for a macro
would remain: we still need the string name of the variable for the
inline assembly.