lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Feb]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH v5 06/14] x86/ioremap: Support hypervisor specified range to map as encrypted
Date
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2023 5:33 AM
>
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 11:47:27PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > I agree with Boris' comment that a one-off "other encrypted range" is a hack, but
> > that's just an API problem. The kernel already has hypervisor specific hooks (and
> > for SEV-ES even), why not expand that? That way figuring out which devices are
> > private is wholly contained in Hyper-V code, at least until there's a generic
> > solution for enumerating private devices, though that seems unlikely to happen
> > and will be a happy problem to solve if it does come about.
>
> I feel ya and this all makes sense and your proposals look clean enough
> to me but we still need some way of determining whether this is a vTOM
> on hyperv

Historically, callbacks like Sean proposed default to NULL and do nothing
unless they are explicitly set. The Hyper-V vTOM code would set the callback.
Is that not sufficient? Or in the two places where the callback would
be made, do you want to bracket with a test for being in a Hyper-V vTOM
VM? If so, then we're back to needing something like CC_ATTR_PARAVISOR
on which to gate the callbacks.

Or do you mean something else entirely?

Michael

> because there's the next crapola with
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230209072220.6836-4-jgross@suse.com/
>
> because apparently hyperv does PAT but disables MTRRs for such vTOM
> SEV-SNP guests and ... madness.
>
> But that's not the only example - Xen has been doing this thing too.
>
> And Jürgen has been trying to address this in a clean way but it is
> a pain.
>
> What I don't want to have is a gazillion ways to check what needs to
> happen for which guest type. Because people who change the kernel to run
> on baremetal, will break them. And I can't blame them. We try to support
> all kinds of guests in the x86 code but this support should be plain and
> simple.
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-27 00:25    [W:0.229 / U:1.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site