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:   Fri, 30 Dec 2022 12:53:31 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>
Cc:     kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@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, wanpengli@tencent.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, 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,
        ashish.kalra@amd.com, harald@profian.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v7 06/64] KVM: x86: Add platform hooks for private
 memory invalidations
Message-ID: <Y67RO+YnQYSX4mvN@zn.tnic>
References: <20221214194056.161492-1-michael.roth@amd.com>
 <20221214194056.161492-7-michael.roth@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221214194056.161492-7-michael.roth@amd.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 01:39:58PM -0600, Michael Roth wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> index a0c41d391547..2713632e5061 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> @@ -7183,3 +7183,8 @@ void kvm_arch_set_memory_attributes(struct kvm *kvm,
>  		kvm_update_lpage_private_shared_mixed(kvm, slot, attrs,
>  						      start, end);
>  }
> +
> +void kvm_arch_invalidate_restricted_mem(struct kvm_memory_slot *slot, gfn_t start, gfn_t end)
> +{
> +	static_call_cond(kvm_x86_invalidate_restricted_mem)(slot, start, end);

Why _cond?

> @@ -258,6 +263,17 @@ void restrictedmem_unregister_notifier(struct file *file,
>  				       struct restrictedmem_notifier *notifier)
>  {
>  	struct restrictedmem_data *data = file->f_mapping->private_data;
> +	struct inode *inode = file_inode(data->memfd);
> +
> +	/* TODO: this will issue notifications to all registered notifiers,

First of all:

verify_comment_style: WARNING: Multi-line comment needs to start text on the second line:
 [+     /* TODO: this will issue notifications to all registered notifiers,]

Then, if you only want to run the callbacks for the one going away only,
why don't you simply do:

        mutex_lock(&data->lock);
        notifier->ops->invalidate_start(notifier, 0, inode->i_size >> PAGE_SHIFT);
        notifier->ops->invalidate_end(notifier, 0, inode->i_size >> PAGE_SHIFT);
        list_del(&notifier->list);
        mutex_unlock(&data->lock);

here?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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