From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga17.intel.com (mga17.intel.com [192.55.52.151]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D75272 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 19:33:27 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10074"; a="195703749" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.84,316,1620716400"; d="scan'208";a="195703749" Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by fmsmga107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Aug 2021 12:33:26 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.84,316,1620716400"; d="scan'208";a="517595794" Received: from akleen-mobl1.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.255.231.194]) ([10.255.231.194]) by fmsmga003-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Aug 2021 12:33:25 -0700 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] x86: Impplement support for unaccepted memory To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Joerg Roedel Cc: Borislav Petkov , Andy Lutomirski , Sean Christopherson , Andrew Morton , Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan , David Rientjes , Vlastimil Babka , Tom Lendacky , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , Paolo Bonzini , Ingo Molnar , Varad Gautam , Dario Faggioli , x86@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Kirill A. Shutemov" References: <20210810062626.1012-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20210812101054.5y6oufwwnisebuyy@box.shutemov.name> From: Andi Kleen Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 12:33:11 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-coco@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210812101054.5y6oufwwnisebuyy@box.shutemov.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US On 8/12/2021 3:10 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 10:23:24AM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote: >> Hi Kirill, >> >> On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 09:26:21AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: >>> Accepting happens via a protocol specific for the Virtrual Machine >>> platform. >> That sentence bothers me a bit. Can you explain what it VMM specific in >> the acceptance protocol? > For TDX we have a signle MapGPA hypercall to VMM plus TDAcceptPage for > every accepted page to TDX Module. SEV-SNP has to something similar. I think Joerg's question was if TDX has a single ABI for all hypervisors. The GHCI specification supports both hypervisor specific and hypervisor agnostic calls. But these basic operations like MapGPA are all hypervisor agnostic. The only differences would be in the existing hypervisor specific PV code. -Andi From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D7EDC4338F for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 19:33:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E11BF6109D for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 19:33:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234449AbhHLTdy (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Aug 2021 15:33:54 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:26725 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234059AbhHLTdw (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Aug 2021 15:33:52 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10074"; a="212319913" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.84,316,1620716400"; d="scan'208";a="212319913" Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Aug 2021 12:33:26 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.84,316,1620716400"; d="scan'208";a="517595794" Received: from akleen-mobl1.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.255.231.194]) ([10.255.231.194]) by fmsmga003-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Aug 2021 12:33:25 -0700 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] x86: Impplement support for unaccepted memory To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Joerg Roedel Cc: Borislav Petkov , Andy Lutomirski , Sean Christopherson , Andrew Morton , Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan , David Rientjes , Vlastimil Babka , Tom Lendacky , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , Paolo Bonzini , Ingo Molnar , Varad Gautam , Dario Faggioli , x86@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Kirill A. Shutemov" References: <20210810062626.1012-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20210812101054.5y6oufwwnisebuyy@box.shutemov.name> From: Andi Kleen Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 12:33:11 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210812101054.5y6oufwwnisebuyy@box.shutemov.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 8/12/2021 3:10 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 10:23:24AM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote: >> Hi Kirill, >> >> On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 09:26:21AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: >>> Accepting happens via a protocol specific for the Virtrual Machine >>> platform. >> That sentence bothers me a bit. Can you explain what it VMM specific in >> the acceptance protocol? > For TDX we have a signle MapGPA hypercall to VMM plus TDAcceptPage for > every accepted page to TDX Module. SEV-SNP has to something similar. I think Joerg's question was if TDX has a single ABI for all hypervisors. The GHCI specification supports both hypervisor specific and hypervisor agnostic calls. But these basic operations like MapGPA are all hypervisor agnostic. The only differences would be in the existing hypervisor specific PV code. -Andi