lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] KVM: SVM: Override default MMIO mask if memory encryption is enabled
From
Date
On 1/8/20 7:57 AM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 1/7/20 6:04 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 05:51:51PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>>> On 1/7/20 5:31 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>>> AIUI, using phys_bits=48, then the standard scenario is Cbit=47 and some
>>>> additional bits 46:M are reserved. Applying that logic to phys_bits=52,
>>>> then Cbit=51 and bits 50:M are reserved, so there's a collision but it's
>>>
>>> There's no requirement that the C-bit correspond to phys_bits. So, for
>>> example, you can have C-bit=51 and phys_bits=48 and so 47:M are reserved.
>>
>> But then using blindly using x86_phys_bits would break if the PA bits
>> aren't reduced, e.g. C-bit=47 and phys_bits=47. AFAICT, there's no
>> requirement that there be reduced PA bits when there is a C-bit. I'm
>> guessing there aren't plans to ship such CPUs, but I don't see anything
>> in the APM to prevent such a scenario.
>
> I can add in extra checks to see if C-bit == phys_bits, etc. and adjust
> with appropriate limit checking. It's in the init path, so the extra
> checks aren't a big deal.

Just sent V3 of the patch. I believe I have all the areas we discussed
covered. I also went back to using rsvd_bits() as was used before the
L1TF changes. Let me know what you think.

Thanks,
Tom

>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
>>
>> Maybe the least painful approach would be to go with a version of this
>> patch and add a check that there are indeeded reserved/reduced bits?
>> Probably with a WARN_ON_ONCE if the check fails.
>>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-08 19:41    [W:0.065 / U:1.904 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site