On 1/8/2025 1:35 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:

On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 01:17:11PM +0530, Nikunj A. Dadhania wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/arch/x86/coco/sev/core.c b/arch/x86/coco/sev/core.c
index 00a0ac3baab7..763cfeb65b2f 100644
--- a/arch/x86/coco/sev/core.c
+++ b/arch/x86/coco/sev/core.c

@@ -3218,7 +3218,8 @@ static int __init snp_get_tsc_info(void)
 
 void __init snp_secure_tsc_prepare(void)
 {
-	if (!cc_platform_has(CC_ATTR_GUEST_SNP_SECURE_TSC))
+	if (!cc_platform_has(CC_ATTR_GUEST_SEV_SNP) ||
+	    !cc_platform_has(CC_ATTR_GUEST_SNP_SECURE_TSC))

So how is moving the CC_ATTR_GUEST_SEV_SNP check here make any sense?

In the comment that you gave here[1], I understood that this check has 
to be pushed to snp_secure_tsc_prepare().

diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c b/arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c
index 996ca27f0b72..95bae74fdab2 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c

@@ -94,9 +94,7 @@ void __init mem_encrypt_init(void)
 	/* Call into SWIOTLB to update the SWIOTLB DMA buffers */
 	swiotlb_update_mem_attributes();
 
-	/* Initialize SNP Secure TSC */
-	if (cc_platform_has(CC_ATTR_GUEST_SEV_SNP))
-		snp_secure_tsc_prepare();
+	snp_secure_tsc_prepare();
 
 	print_mem_encrypt_feature_info();
 }
 

I simply zapped the MSR_AMD64_SEV_SNP_ENABLED check above locally.

For SEV and SEV-ES this SecureTSC bit should not be set, I think we should be 
fine without MSR_AMD64_SEV_SNP_ENABLED check.

Regards
Nikunj

1. https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20241111103434.GAZzHduouKi4LBwbg8@fat_crate.local/ (local)