| From | Peter Gonda <> | Date | Mon, 12 Jul 2021 12:45:56 -0600 | Subject | Re: [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 23/40] KVM: SVM: Add KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_START command |
| |
> > +static int snp_decommission_context(struct kvm *kvm) > +{ > + struct kvm_sev_info *sev = &to_kvm_svm(kvm)->sev_info; > + struct sev_data_snp_decommission data = {}; > + int ret; > + > + /* If context is not created then do nothing */ > + if (!sev->snp_context) > + return 0; > + > + data.gctx_paddr = __sme_pa(sev->snp_context); > + ret = snp_guest_decommission(&data, NULL); > + if (ret) > + return ret;
Should we WARN or pr_err here? I see in the case of snp_launch_start's e_free_context we do not warn the user they have leaked a firmware page.
> > + > + /* free the context page now */ > + snp_free_firmware_page(sev->snp_context); > + sev->snp_context = NULL; > + > + return 0; > +} > + > void sev_vm_destroy(struct kvm *kvm) > { > struct kvm_sev_info *sev = &to_kvm_svm(kvm)->sev_info; > @@ -1847,7 +1969,15 @@ void sev_vm_destroy(struct kvm *kvm) > > mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock); > > - sev_unbind_asid(kvm, sev->handle); > + if (sev_snp_guest(kvm)) { > + if (snp_decommission_context(kvm)) { > + pr_err("Failed to free SNP guest context, leaking asid!\n");
Should these errors be a WARN since we are leaking some state?
> + return; > + } > + } else { > + sev_unbind_asid(kvm, sev->handle); > + } > + > sev_asid_free(sev); > } >
|