[Public]

quoted

+static inline void snp_leak_pages(u64 pfn, enum pg_level level) {
+       unsigned int npages = page_level_size(level) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
+
+       WARN(1, "psc failed pfn 0x%llx pages %d (leaking)\n", pfn, 
+ npages);
+
+       while (npages) {
+               memory_failure(pfn, 0);
+               dump_rmpentry(pfn);
+               npages--;
+               pfn++;
+       }
+}

Should this be deduplicated with the snp_leak_pages() in "crypto: ccp:
Handle the legacy TMR allocation when SNP is enabled" ?

Yes, probably should.

quoted

+static bool is_hva_registered(struct kvm *kvm, hva_t hva, size_t len) 
+{
+       struct kvm_sev_info *sev = &to_kvm_svm(kvm)->sev_info;
+       struct list_head *head = &sev->regions_list;
+       struct enc_region *i;
+
+       lockdep_assert_held(&kvm->lock);
+
+       list_for_each_entry(i, head, list) {
+               u64 start = i->uaddr;
+               u64 end = start + i->size;
+
+               if (start <= hva && end >= (hva + len))
+                       return true;
+       }

Given that usersapce could load sev->regions_list with any # of any sized regions. Should we add a  cond_resched() like in sev_vm_destroy()?

Actually, is_hva_registered() is also called from PSC handler with kvm->lock mutex held. Even though it is a mutex, I am not really sure if
it is a good idea to do cond_resched() with the kvm->lock mutex held ?

quoted

+e_unpin:
+       /* Content of memory is updated, mark pages dirty */
+       for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {

Since |n| is not only a loop variable but actually carries the number of private pages over to e_unpin can we use a more descriptive name?
How about something like 'nprivate_pages'?

Yes.

Thanks,
Ashish