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, 13 Jan 2023 15:34:36 +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 04/64] KVM: x86: Add 'fault_is_private' x86 op
Message-ID: <Y8Fr/F1RV0B8CHq5@zn.tnic>
References: <20221214194056.161492-1-michael.roth@amd.com>
 <20221214194056.161492-5-michael.roth@amd.com>
 <Y628y6hQK38+IAev@zn.tnic>
 <20230105024256.ptujtjgzcdmpakoa@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230105024256.ptujtjgzcdmpakoa@amd.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 08:42:56PM -0600, Michael Roth wrote:
> Obviously I need to add some proper documentation for this, but a 1
> return basically means 'private_fault' pass-by-ref arg has been set
> with the appropriate value, whereas 0 means "there's no platform-specific
> handling for this, so if you have some generic way to determine this
> then use that instead".

Still binary, tho, and can be bool, right?

I.e., you can just as well do:

        if (static_call(kvm_x86_fault_is_private)(kvm, gpa, err, &private_fault))
                goto out;

at the call site.

> This is mainly to handle CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_PRIVATE_MEM_TESTING, which
> just parrots whatever kvm_mem_is_private() returns to support running
> KVM selftests without needed hardware/platform support. If we don't
> take care to skip this check where the above fault_is_private() hook
> returns 1, then it ends up breaking SNP in cases where the kernel has
> been compiled with CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_PRIVATE_MEM_TESTING, since SNP
> relies on the page fault flags to make this determination, not
> kvm_mem_is_private(), which normally only tracks the memory attributes
> set by userspace via KVM_SET_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES ioctl.

Some of that explanation belongs into the commit message, which is a bit
lacking...

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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