Re: [PATCH v5 06/14] x86/ioremap: Support hypervisor specified range to map as encrypted
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Date: 2023-02-23 21:07:59
Also in:
linux-arch, linux-hyperv, linux-iommu, linux-pci, lkml
On Thu, Feb 23, 2023, Michael Kelley (LINUX) wrote:
From: Dave Hansen <redacted> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2023 12:42 PMquoted
On 2/23/23 12:26, Dave Hansen wrote:quoted
quoted
+ if (cc_platform_has(CC_ATTR_GUEST_MEM_ENCRYPT)) { + /* + * Ensure fixmaps for IOAPIC MMIO respect memory encryption pgprot + * bits, just like normal ioremap(): + */ + if (x86_platform.hyper.is_private_mmio(phys)) + flags = pgprot_encrypted(flags); + else + flags = pgprot_decrypted(flags); + }...quoted
It does seem a bit odd that there's a new CC_ATTR_GUEST_MEM_ENCRYPT check wrapping this whole thing. I guess the trip through pgprot_decrypted() is harmless on normal platforms, though.Yeah, that's _really_ odd. Sean, were you trying to optimize away the indirect call or something?
No, my thought was simply to require platforms that support GUEST_MEM_ENCRYPT to
implement x86_platform.hyper.is_private_mmio, e.g. to avoid having to check if
is_private_mmio is NULL, to explicit document that non-Hyper-V encrypted guests
don't (yet) support private MMIO, and to add a bit of documentation around the
{de,en}crypted logic.
quoted
I would just expect the Hyper-V/vTOM code to leave x86_platform.hyper.is_private_mmio alone unless it *knows* the platform has private MMIO *and* CC_ATTR_GUEST_MEM_ENCRYPT.Agreed.quoted
Is there ever a case where CC_ATTR_GUEST_MEM_ENCRYPT==0 and he Hyper-V/vTOM code would need to set x86_platform.hyper.is_private_mmio?There's no such case. I agree that gating with CC_ATTR_GUEST_MEM_ENCRYPT isn't really necessary. Current upstream code always does the pgprot_decrypted(), and as you said, that's a no-op on platforms with no memory encryption.
Right, but since is_private_mmio can be NULL, unless I'm missing something we'll need an extra check no matter what, i.e. the alternative would be if (x86_platform.hyper.is_private_mmio && x86_platform.hyper.is_private_mmio(phys)) flags = pgprot_encrypted(flags); else flags = pgprot_decrypted(flags); I have no objection to that approach. It does have the advantage of not needing an indirect call for encrypted guests that don't support private MMIO, though I can't imagine this code is performance sensitive.