[lkml]   [2022]   [Oct]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH Part2 v6 12/49] crypto: ccp: Add support to initialize the AMD-SP for SEV-SNP
On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 04:09:11PM -0500, Kalra, Ashish wrote:
> Yes, we need to do:
> wbinvd_on_all_cpus();
> Need to ensure all the caches are clear before launching the first guest and
> this has to be a combination of WBINVD and SNP_DF_FLUSH command.


> > Why isn't this retval checked?
> From the SNP FW ABI specs, for the SNP_SHUTDOWN command:
> Firmware checks for every encryption capable ASID that the ASID is not in
> use by a guest and a DF_FLUSH is not required. If a DF_FLUSH is required,
> the firmware returns DFFLUSH_REQUIRED.
> Considering that SNP_SHUTDOWN command will check if DF_FLUSH was
> required and if so, and not invoked before that command, returns
> an error indicating that DFFLUSH is required.
> This way, we can cleverly avoid taking the error code path for
> DF_FLUSH command here and instead let the SNP_SHUTDOWN command
> failure below indicate if DF_FLUSH command failed.
> This also ensures that we always invoke SNP_SHUTDOWN command,
> irrespective of SNP_DF_FLUSH command failure as SNP_DF_FLUSH may
> actually not be required by the SHUTDOWN command.

This all sounds just silly. The proper way to do this is:

ret = __sev_do_cmd_locked(SEV_CMD_SNP_SHUTDOWN, NULL, error);
if (ret == DFFLUSH_REQUIRED) {
ret = __sev_do_cmd_locked(SEV_CMD_SNP_DF_FLUSH, NULL, NULL);
if (ret)
"... DF_FLUSH failed...";

goto retry;

I'm assuming here the firmware is smart enough to not keep returning
DFFLUSH_REQUIRED constantly and cause an endless loop.



 \ /
  Last update: 2022-10-25 10:31    [W:0.187 / U:1.076 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site