Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-73179-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 15:28:12 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Cc: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	x86@kernel.org, dave.hansen@intel.com,
	kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
	mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, luto@kernel.org,
	peterz@infradead.org, chao.gao@intel.com, bhe@redhat.com,
	nik.borisov@suse.com, pbonzini@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] x86/coco: Add a new CC attribute to unify cache
 flush during kexec
Message-ID: <20240220142812.GBZdS2_HJEA50F8RZD@fat_crate.local>
References: <cover.1706698706.git.kai.huang@intel.com>
 <cd88e97e53c502f0a457d6a82a31d9e8e0f9fca7.1706698706.git.kai.huang@intel.com>
 <20240219161611.GBZdN-y6DO-cspaZrf@fat_crate.local>
 <9164b0e3-f520-4aab-8b80-520131f0e4db@amd.com>
 <20240219203222.GIZdO61ucfq4bFxRT0@fat_crate.local>
 <283877fd-78c7-4322-bbce-ba6420d56765@amd.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <283877fd-78c7-4322-bbce-ba6420d56765@amd.com>

On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 04:09:47PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> That's why the '!(sev_status & MSR_AMD64_SEV_ENABLED)' works here.

I would've never figured that out just from staring at the test. :-\

> Basically, if you are bare-metal, it will return true. And it will only
> return true for machines that support SME and have the
> MSR_AMD64_SYSCFG_MEM_ENCRYPT bit set in SYS_CFG MSR because of where the
> 'cc_vendor = CC_VENDOR_AMD' assignment is. However, if you move the
> 'cc_vendor = CC_VENDOR_AMD' to before the if statement, then you will have
> the WBINVD called for any machine that supports SME, even if SME is not
> possible because the proper bit in the SYS_CFG MSR hasn't been set.
> 
> I know what I'm trying to say, let me know if it is making sense...

Yah, thanks for taking the time to explain.

Here's an even more radical idea:

Why not do WBINVD *unconditionally* on the CPU down path?

- it is the opposite of a fast path, i.e., no one cares

- it'll take care of every possible configuration without ugly logic

- it wouldn't hurt to have the caches nice and coherent before going
  down

Hmmm.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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