Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-128357-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
From: bp@kernel.org
To: thomas.lendacky@amd.com
Cc: ashish.kalra@amd.com,
	bp@alien8.de,
	bp@kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org,
	michael.roth@amd.com,
	x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/sev: Apply RMP table fixups for kexec.
Date: Tue,  2 Apr 2024 18:34:12 +0200
Message-ID: <20240402163412.19325-1-bp@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <2ab14f6f-2690-056b-cf9e-38a12dafd728@amd.com>
References: <2ab14f6f-2690-056b-cf9e-38a12dafd728@amd.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>

On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 10:54:50AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> There's no requirement from a hardware/RMP usage perspective that requires a
> 2MB alignment, so BIOS is not doing anything wrong. The problem occurs
> because kexec is initially using 2MB mappings that overlap the start and/or
> end of the RMP which then results in an RMP fault when memory within one of
> those 2MB mappings, that is not part of the RMP, is referenced.

Then this explanation is misleading. And that whole bla about alignment
is nonsense either.

> Additionally, we have BIOSes out there since Milan that don't do this 2MB
> alignment. And do you really trust that BIOS will do this properly all the
> time?

I don't trust the BIOS to do anything properly.

So why isn't the fix for this simply to reserve the space for the RMP
table to start at 2M page - even if it doesn't - and to cover the last
chunk *also* with a 2M page and be done with it?

Not this silly overriding dance.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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