Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto+bounces-1943-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2024 06:34:23 -0800
In-Reply-To: <20240209015205.xv66udh6hqz7a6t7@amd.com>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <20231230172351.574091-1-michael.roth@amd.com> <20231230172351.574091-19-michael.roth@amd.com>
 <ZZ67oJwzAsSvui5U@google.com> <20240116041457.wver7acnwthjaflr@amd.com>
 <Zb1yv67h6gkYqqv9@google.com> <CABgObfa_PbxXdj9v7=2ZXfqQ_tJgdQTrO9NHKOQ691TSKQDY2A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240209015205.xv66udh6hqz7a6t7@amd.com>
Message-ID: <ZcY37-KKIy1O27ad@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 18/35] KVM: SEV: Add KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_UPDATE command
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, 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, 
	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, bp@alien8.de, 
	vbabka@suse.cz, kirill@shutemov.name, ak@linux.intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com, 
	sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com, alpergun@google.com, 
	jarkko@kernel.org, ashish.kalra@amd.com, nikunj.dadhania@amd.com, 
	pankaj.gupta@amd.com, liam.merwick@oracle.com, zhi.a.wang@intel.com, 
	Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Feb 08, 2024, Michael Roth wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 12:43:02AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 11:55=E2=80=AFPM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@goo=
gle.com> wrote:
> > What sanity is being checked for, in other words why are they useful?
> > If all you get for breaking the promise is a KVM_BUG_ON, for example,
> > that's par for the course. If instead you get an oops, then we have a
> > problem.
> >=20
> > I may be a bit less draconian than Sean, but the assumptions need to
> > be documented and explained because they _are_ going to go away.
>=20
> Maybe in this case sanity-check isn't the right word, but for instance
> the occurance Sean objected to:
>=20
>   kvaddr =3D pfn_to_kaddr(pfns[i]);
>   if (!virt_addr_valid(kvaddr)) {
>     ...
>     ret =3D -EINVAL;
>=20
> where there are pfn_valid() checks underneath the covers that provide
> some assurance this is normal struct-page-backed/kernel-tracked memory
> that has a mapping in the directmap we can use here. Dropping that
> assumption means we need to create temporary mappings to access the PFN,

No, you don't.  kvm_vcpu_map() does all of the lifting for you, with the sm=
all
caveat that it obviously needs a vCPU.  But that's trivial to solve with a =
minor
refactoring, *if* we need to solve that problem (it's not clear to me wheth=
er or
not the APIs for copying data into guest_memfd will be VM-scoped or vCPU-sc=
oped).