Re: [PATCH 07/11] treewide: Replace the use of mem_encrypt_active() with prot_guest_has()

[Kirill A. Shutemov]

On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 10:52:55AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 8/11/21 7:19 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 02:48:54PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> >> On 8/10/21 1:45 PM, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 7/27/21 3:26 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> >>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/head64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/head64.c
> >>>> index de01903c3735..cafed6456d45 100644
> >>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/head64.c
> >>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/head64.c
> >>>> @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
> >>>>   #include <linux/start_kernel.h>
> >>>>   #include <linux/io.h>
> >>>>   #include <linux/memblock.h>
> >>>> -#include <linux/mem_encrypt.h>
> >>>> +#include <linux/protected_guest.h>
> >>>>   #include <linux/pgtable.h>
> >>>>     #include <asm/processor.h>
> >>>> @@ -285,7 +285,7 @@ unsigned long __head __startup_64(unsigned long
> >>>> physaddr,
> >>>>        * there is no need to zero it after changing the memory encryption
> >>>>        * attribute.
> >>>>        */
> >>>> -    if (mem_encrypt_active()) {
> >>>> +    if (prot_guest_has(PATTR_MEM_ENCRYPT)) {
> >>>>           vaddr = (unsigned long)__start_bss_decrypted;
> >>>>           vaddr_end = (unsigned long)__end_bss_decrypted;
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Since this change is specific to AMD, can you replace PATTR_MEM_ENCRYPT with
> >>> prot_guest_has(PATTR_SME) || prot_guest_has(PATTR_SEV). It is not used in
> >>> TDX.
> >>
> >> This is a direct replacement for now.
> > 
> > With current implementation of prot_guest_has() for TDX it breaks boot for
> > me.
> > 
> > Looking at code agains, now I *think* the reason is accessing a global
> > variable from __startup_64() inside TDX version of prot_guest_has().
> > 
> > __startup_64() is special. If you access any global variable you need to
> > use fixup_pointer(). See comment before __startup_64().
> > 
> > I'm not sure how you get away with accessing sme_me_mask directly from
> > there. Any clues? Maybe just a luck and complier generates code just right
> > for your case, I donno.
> 
> Hmm... yeah, could be that the compiler is using rip-relative addressing
> for it because it lives in the .data section?

I guess. It has to be fixed. It may break with complier upgrade or any
random change around the code.

BTW, does it work with clang for you?

> For the static variables in mem_encrypt_identity.c I did an assembler rip
> relative LEA, but probably could have passed physaddr to sme_enable() and
> used a fixup_pointer() style function, instead.

Sounds like a plan.

> > A separate point is that TDX version of prot_guest_has() relies on
> > cpu_feature_enabled() which is not ready at this point.
> 
> Does TDX have to do anything special to make memory able to be shared with
> the hypervisor?

Yes. But there's nothing that required any changes in early boot. It
handled in ioremap/set_memory.

> You might have to use something that is available earlier
> than cpu_feature_enabled() in that case (should you eventually support
> kvmclock).

Maybe.

> > I think __bss_decrypted fixup has to be done if sme_me_mask is non-zero.
> > Or just do it uncoditionally because it's NOP for sme_me_mask == 0.
> 
> For SNP, we'll have to additionally call the HV to update the RMP to make
> the memory shared. But that could also be done unconditionally since the
> early_snp_set_memory_shared() routine will check for SNP before doing
> anything.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov