On 09/12/2016 09:35 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 05:38:49PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:

quoted

Update the KVM support to include the memory encryption mask when creating
and using nested page tables.

Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
---
 arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h |    3 ++-
 arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c              |    8 ++++++--
 arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c              |    3 ++-
 arch/x86/kvm/x86.c              |    3 ++-
 4 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
index 33ae3a4..c51c1cb 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h

@@ -1039,7 +1039,8 @@ void kvm_mmu_setup(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
 void kvm_mmu_init_vm(struct kvm *kvm);
 void kvm_mmu_uninit_vm(struct kvm *kvm);
 void kvm_mmu_set_mask_ptes(u64 user_mask, u64 accessed_mask,
-		u64 dirty_mask, u64 nx_mask, u64 x_mask, u64 p_mask);
+		u64 dirty_mask, u64 nx_mask, u64 x_mask, u64 p_mask,
+		u64 me_mask);

Why do you need a separate mask?

arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c::set_spte() ORs in shadow_present_mask
unconditionally. So you can simply do:


	kvm_mmu_set_mask_ptes(PT_USER_MASK, PT_ACCESSED_MASK,
			      PT_DIRTY_MASK, PT64_NX_MASK, 0,
			      PT_PRESENT_MASK | sme_me_mask);

and have this change much simpler.

Just keeping in step with the way this is done for the other masks.
They each have a specific meaning so I was trying not to combine
them in case they may be used differently in the future.

quoted

 void kvm_mmu_reset_context(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
 void kvm_mmu_slot_remove_write_access(struct kvm *kvm,

diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
index 3d4cc8cc..a7040f4 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c

@@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ module_param(dbg, bool, 0644);
 					    * PT32_LEVEL_BITS))) - 1))
 
 #define PT64_PERM_MASK (PT_PRESENT_MASK | PT_WRITABLE_MASK | shadow_user_mask \
-			| shadow_x_mask | shadow_nx_mask)
+			| shadow_x_mask | shadow_nx_mask | shadow_me_mask)

This would be sme_me_mask, of course, like with the baremetal masks.

Or am I missing something?

Given the current patch, this would be shadow_me_mask since that value
is set by the call to kvm_mmu_set_mask_ptes.

Thanks,
Tom

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>