Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 25 Oct 2022 10:30:56 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     "Kalra, Ashish" <ashish.kalra@amd.com>
Cc:     x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
        jroedel@suse.de, thomas.lendacky@amd.com, hpa@zytor.com,
        ardb@kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, seanjc@google.com,
        vkuznets@redhat.com, jmattson@google.com, luto@kernel.org,
        dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, slp@redhat.com, pgonda@google.com,
        peterz@infradead.org, srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com,
        rientjes@google.com, dovmurik@linux.ibm.com, tobin@ibm.com,
        michael.roth@amd.com, vbabka@suse.cz, kirill@shutemov.name,
        ak@linux.intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com, marcorr@google.com,
        sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com, alpergun@google.com,
        dgilbert@redhat.com, jarkko@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH Part2 v6 12/49] crypto: ccp: Add support to initialize
 the AMD-SP for SEV-SNP
Message-ID: <Y1eewE4wj7MwXpFz@zn.tnic>
References: <cover.1655761627.git.ashish.kalra@amd.com>
 <87a0481526e66ddd5f6192cbb43a50708aee2883.1655761627.git.ashish.kalra@amd.com>
 <Yzh558vy+rJfsBBq@zn.tnic>
 <f997dd38-a615-e343-44cd-a7aeb9447a1e@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f997dd38-a615-e343-44cd-a7aeb9447a1e@amd.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 04:09:11PM -0500, Kalra, Ashish wrote:
> Yes, we need to do:
> 
> wbinvd_on_all_cpus();
> SNP_DF_FLUSH
> 
> Need to ensure all the caches are clear before launching the first guest and
> this has to be a combination of WBINVD and SNP_DF_FLUSH command.

Ok.

> > Why isn't this retval checked?
> 
> From the SNP FW ABI specs, for the SNP_SHUTDOWN command:
> 
> Firmware checks for every encryption capable ASID that the ASID is not in
> use by a guest and a DF_FLUSH is not required. If a DF_FLUSH is required,
> the firmware returns DFFLUSH_REQUIRED.
>
> Considering that SNP_SHUTDOWN command will check if DF_FLUSH was
> required and if so, and not invoked before that command, returns
> an error indicating that DFFLUSH is required.
> 
> This way, we can cleverly avoid taking the error code path for
> DF_FLUSH command here and instead let the SNP_SHUTDOWN command
> failure below indicate if DF_FLUSH command failed.
> 
> This also ensures that we always invoke SNP_SHUTDOWN command,
> irrespective of SNP_DF_FLUSH command failure as SNP_DF_FLUSH may
> actually not be required by the SHUTDOWN command.

This all sounds just silly. The proper way to do this is:

retry:
        ret = __sev_do_cmd_locked(SEV_CMD_SNP_SHUTDOWN, NULL, error);
        if (ret == DFFLUSH_REQUIRED) {
		ret = __sev_do_cmd_locked(SEV_CMD_SNP_DF_FLUSH, NULL, NULL);
		if (ret)
			"... DF_FLUSH failed...";

		goto retry;
	}

I'm assuming here the firmware is smart enough to not keep returning
DFFLUSH_REQUIRED constantly and cause an endless loop.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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