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:   Wed, 2 Nov 2022 12:22:22 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     "Kalra, Ashish" <ashish.kalra@amd.com>
Cc:     vbabka@suse.cz, 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,
        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,
        "Kaplan, David" <David.Kaplan@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH Part2 v6 14/49] crypto: ccp: Handle the legacy TMR
 allocation when SNP is enabled
Message-ID: <Y2JS7kn8Q9P4rXso@zn.tnic>
References: <cover.1655761627.git.ashish.kalra@amd.com>
 <3a51840f6a80c87b39632dc728dbd9b5dd444cd7.1655761627.git.ashish.kalra@amd.com>
 <Y0grhk1sq2tf/tUl@zn.tnic>
 <380c9748-1c86-4763-ea18-b884280a3b60@amd.com>
 <Y1e5oC9QyDlKpxZ9@zn.tnic>
 <6511c122-d5cc-3f8d-9651-7c2cd67dc5af@amd.com>
 <Y2A6/ZwvKhpNBTMP@zn.tnic>
 <dc89b2f4-1053-91ac-aeac-bb3b25f9ebc7@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <dc89b2f4-1053-91ac-aeac-bb3b25f9ebc7@amd.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 04:58:38PM -0500, Kalra, Ashish wrote:
>      if (snp_lookup_rmpentry(pfn, &rmp_level)) {
>             do_sigbus(regs, error_code, address, VM_FAULT_SIGBUS);
>             return RMP_PF_RETRY;

Does this issue some halfway understandable error message why the
process got killed?

> Will look at adding our own recovery function for the same, but that will
> again mark the pages as poisoned, right ?

Well, not poisoned but PG_offlimits or whatever the mm folks agree upon.
Semantically, it'll be handled the same way, ofc.

> Still waiting for some/more feedback from mm folks on the same.

Just send the patch and they'll give it.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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