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;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of amd.com designates
 165.204.84.17 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=165.204.84.17; helo=SATLEXMB04.amd.com; pr=C
Date:   Wed, 4 Jan 2023 20:27:14 -0600
From:   Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
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: <20230105022714.kdpybcse24xi2lq6@amd.com>
References: <20221214194056.161492-1-michael.roth@amd.com>
 <20221214194056.161492-7-michael.roth@amd.com>
 <Y67RO+YnQYSX4mvN@zn.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y67RO+YnQYSX4mvN@zn.tnic>
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jan 2023 02:59:09.6708
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: de074cc5-1f10-4934-8336-08daeec8d13a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 3dd8961f-e488-4e60-8e11-a82d994e183d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=3dd8961f-e488-4e60-8e11-a82d994e183d;Ip=[165.204.84.17];Helo=[SATLEXMB04.amd.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: DM6NAM11FT053.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DS7PR12MB8348
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
        DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
        RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham
        autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
        lindbergh.monkeyblade.net
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 12:53:31PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> 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?

Since this hook is declared via KVM_X86_OP_OPTIONAL() (instead of
KVM_X86_OP_OPTIONAL_RET0 like the previous hooks), the comment in kvm-x86-ops.h
suggests this should be called via static_call_cond():

  /*
   * KVM_X86_OP() and KVM_X86_OP_OPTIONAL() are used to help generate
   * both DECLARE/DEFINE_STATIC_CALL() invocations and
   * "static_call_update()" calls.
   *
   * KVM_X86_OP_OPTIONAL() can be used for those functions that can have
   * a NULL definition, for example if "static_call_cond()" will be used
   * at the call sites.  KVM_X86_OP_OPTIONAL_RET0() can be used likewise
   * to make a definition optional, but in this case the default will
   * be __static_call_return0.
   */


> 
> > @@ -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?

That should do the trick. Thanks for the suggestion.

-Mike

> 
> -- 
> Regards/Gruss,
>     Boris.
> 
> https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette