linux-coco.lists.linux.dev archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: brijesh.singh@amd.com, x86@kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>,
	Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
	Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
	Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	Sergio Lopez <slp@redhat.com>, Peter Gonda <pgonda@google.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Dov Murik <dovmurik@linux.ibm.com>,
	Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum <tobin@ibm.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	tony.luck@intel.com, npmccallum@redhat.com,
	brijesh.ksingh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 38/40] KVM: SVM: Provide support for SNP_GUEST_REQUEST NAE event
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 13:21:00 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <0641fdec-48a0-b3b7-9926-3ce5a6e53eb0@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YPb5yfKEyJjvDbOl@google.com>



On 7/20/21 11:28 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:

> 
> Ah, I got confused by this code in snp_build_guest_buf():
> 
> 	data->req_paddr = __sme_set(req_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT);
> 
> I was thinking that setting the C-bit meant the memory was guest private, but
> that's setting the C-bit for the HPA, which is correct since KVM installs guest
> memory with C-bit=1 in the NPT, i.e. encrypts shared memory with the host key.
> 
> Tangetially related question, is it correct to say that the host can _read_ memory
> from a page that is assigned=1, but has asid=0?  I.e. KVM can read the response
> page in order to copy it into the guest, even though it is a firmware page?
> 

Yes. The firmware page means that x86 cannot write to it; the read is 
still allowed.


> 	/* Copy the response after the firmware returns success. */
> 	rc = kvm_write_guest(kvm, resp_gpa, sev->snp_resp_page, PAGE_SIZE);
> 
>> In the current series we don't support migration etc so I decided to
>> ratelimit unconditionally.
> 
> Since KVM can peek at the request header, KVM should flat out disallow requests
> that KVM doesn't explicitly support.  E.g. migration requests should not be sent
> to the PSP.
> 

That is acceptable.


> One concern though: How does the guest query what requests are supported?  This
> snippet implies there's some form of enumeration:
> 
>    Note: This guest message may be removed in future versions as it is redundant
>    with the CPUID page in SNP_LAUNCH_UPDATE (see Section 8.14).
> 
> But all I can find is a "Message Version" in "Table 94. Message Type Encodings",
> which implies that request support is all or nothing for a given version.  That
> would be rather unfortunate as KVM has no way to tell the guest that something
> is unsupported :-(
> 

The firmware supports all the commands listed in the spec. The HV 
support is always going to be behind what a firmware or hardware is 
capable of doing. As per the spec is concerned, it say

   The firmware checks that MSG_TYPE is a valid message type. The
   firmware then checks that MSG_SIZE is large enough to hold the
   indicated message type at the indicated message version. If
   not, the firmware returns INVALID_PARAM.

So, a hypervisor could potentially send the INVALID_PARAMS to indicate 
that guest that a message type is not supported.


>>> Is this exposed to userspace in any way?  This feels very much like a knob that
>>> needs to be configurable per-VM.
>>
>> It's not exposed to the userspace and I am not sure if userspace care about
>> this knob.
> 
> Userspace definitely cares, otherwise the system would need to be rebooted just to
> tune the ratelimiting.  And userspace may want to disable ratelimiting entirely,
> e.g. if the entire system is dedicated to a single VM.

Ok.

> 
>>> Also, what are the estimated latencies of a guest request?  If the worst case
>>> latency is >200ms, a default ratelimit frequency of 5hz isn't going to do a whole
>>> lot.
>>>
>>
>> The latency will depend on what else is going in the system at the time the
>> request comes to the hypervisor. Access to the PSP is serialized so other
>> parallel PSP command execution will contribute to the latency.
> 
> I get that it will be variable, but what are some ballpark latencies?  E.g. what's
> the latency of the slowest command without PSP contention?
> 

In my single VM, I am seeing latency of guest request to be around ~35ms.

>>> Question on the VMPCK sequences.  The firmware ABI says:
>>>
>>>      Each guest has four VMPCKs ... Each message contains a sequence number per
>>>      VMPCK. The sequence number is incremented with each message sent. Messages
>>>      sent by the guest to the firmware and by the firmware to the guest must be
>>>      delivered in order. If not, the firmware will reject subsequent messages ...
>>>
>>> Does that mean there are four independent sequences, i.e. four streams the guest
>>> can use "concurrently", or does it mean the overall freshess/integrity check is
>>> composed from four VMPCK sequences, all of which must be correct for the message
>>> to be valid?
>>>
>>
>> There are four independent sequence counter and in theory guest can use them
>> concurrently. But the access to the PSP must be serialized.
> 
> Technically that's not required from the guest's perspective, correct?  

Correct.

The guest
> only cares about the sequence numbers for a given VMPCK, e.g. it can have one
> in-flight request per VMPCK and expect that to work, even without fully serializing
> its own requests.
> 
> Out of curiosity, why 4 VMPCKs?  It seems completely arbitrary.
> 

I believe the thought process was by providing 4 keys it can provide 
flexibility for each VMPL levels to use a different keys (if they wish). 
The firmware does not care about the vmpl level during the guest request 
handling, it just want to know which key is used for encrypting the 
payload so that he can decrypt and provide the  response for it.


>> Currently, the guest driver uses the VMPCK0 key to communicate with the PSP.
>>
>>
>>> If it's the latter, then a traditional mutex isn't really necessary because the
>>> guest must implement its own serialization, e.g. it's own mutex or whatever, to
>>> ensure there is at most one request in-flight at any given time.
>>
>> The guest driver uses the its own serialization to ensure that there is
>> *exactly* one request in-flight.
> 
> But KVM can't rely on that because it doesn't control the guest, e.g. it may be
> running a non-Linux guest.
>

Yes, KVM should not rely on it. I mentioned that mainly because you said 
that guest must implement its own serialization. In the case of KVM, the 
CCP driver ensure that the command sent to the PSP is serialized.


>> The mutex used here is to protect the KVM's internal firmware response
>> buffer.
> 
> Ya, where I was going with my question was that if the guest was architecturally
> restricted to a single in-flight request, then KVM could do something like this
> instead of taking kvm->lock (bad pseudocode):
> 
> 	if (test_and_set(sev->guest_request)) {
> 		rc = AEAD_OFLOW;
> 		goto fail;
> 	}
> 
> 	<do request>
> 
> 	clear_bit(...)
> 
> I.e. multiple in-flight requests can't work because the guest can guarantee
> ordering between vCPUs.  But, because the guest can theoretically have up to four
> in-flight requests, it's not that simple.
> 
> The reason I'm going down this path is that taking kvm->lock inside vcpu->mutex
> violates KVM's locking rules, i.e. is susceptibl to deadlocks.  Per kvm/locking.rst,
> 
>    - kvm->lock is taken outside vcpu->mutex
> 
> That means a different mutex is needed to protect the guest request pages.
> 

Ah, I see your point on the locking. From architecturally a guest can 
issue multiple requests in parallel. It sounds like having a separate 
lock to protect the guest request pages makes sense.


-Brijesh

  reply	other threads:[~2021-07-20 18:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 176+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-07-07 18:35 [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 00/40] Add AMD Secure Nested Paging (SEV-SNP) Hypervisor Support Brijesh Singh
2021-07-07 18:35 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 01/40] KVM: SVM: Add support to handle AP reset MSR protocol Brijesh Singh
2021-07-14 20:17   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-15  7:39     ` Joerg Roedel
2021-07-15 13:42     ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-15 15:45       ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-15 17:05         ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-07 18:35 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 02/40] KVM: SVM: Provide the Hypervisor Feature support VMGEXIT Brijesh Singh
2021-07-14 20:37   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-14 21:00     ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-07 18:35 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 03/40] x86/cpufeatures: Add SEV-SNP CPU feature Brijesh Singh
2021-07-07 18:35 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 04/40] x86/sev: Add the host SEV-SNP initialization support Brijesh Singh
2021-07-14 21:07   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-14 22:02     ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-14 22:06       ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-14 22:11         ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-07 18:35 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 05/40] x86/sev: Add RMP entry lookup helpers Brijesh Singh
2021-07-15 18:37   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-15 19:28     ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-16 17:22       ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-20 22:06         ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-20 23:10           ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-07 18:35 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 06/40] x86/sev: Add helper functions for RMPUPDATE and PSMASH instruction Brijesh Singh
2021-07-12 18:44   ` Peter Gonda
2021-07-12 19:00     ` Dave Hansen
2021-07-15 18:56       ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-15 19:08         ` Dave Hansen
2021-07-15 19:18           ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-07 18:35 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 07/40] x86/sev: Split the physmap when adding the page in RMP table Brijesh Singh
2021-07-14 22:25   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-15 17:05     ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-15 17:51       ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-15 18:14         ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-15 18:39           ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-15 19:38             ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-15 22:01               ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-15 22:11                 ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-30 11:31               ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-07-30 16:10                 ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-07 18:35 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 08/40] x86/traps: Define RMP violation #PF error code Brijesh Singh
2021-07-15 19:02   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-15 19:16     ` Dave Hansen
2021-07-07 18:35 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 09/40] x86/fault: Add support to dump RMP entry on fault Brijesh Singh
2021-07-07 19:21   ` Dave Hansen
2021-07-08 15:02     ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-08 15:30       ` Dave Hansen
2021-07-08 16:48         ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-08 16:58           ` Dave Hansen
2021-07-08 17:11             ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-08 17:15               ` Dave Hansen
2021-07-07 18:35 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 10/40] x86/fault: Add support to handle the RMP fault for user address Brijesh Singh
2021-07-08 16:16   ` Dave Hansen
2021-07-12 15:43     ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-12 16:00       ` Dave Hansen
2021-07-12 16:11         ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-12 16:15           ` Dave Hansen
2021-07-12 16:24             ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-12 16:29               ` Dave Hansen
2021-07-12 16:49                 ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-15 21:53                   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-30 16:00   ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-07-30 16:31     ` Dave Hansen
2021-07-07 18:35 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 11/40] crypto:ccp: Define the SEV-SNP commands Brijesh Singh
2021-07-07 18:35 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 12/40] crypto: ccp: Add support to initialize the AMD-SP for SEV-SNP Brijesh Singh
2021-07-07 18:35 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 13/40] crypto: ccp: Shutdown SNP firmware on kexec Brijesh Singh
2021-07-07 18:35 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 14/40] crypto:ccp: Provide APIs to issue SEV-SNP commands Brijesh Singh
2021-07-08 18:56   ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2021-07-07 18:35 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 15/40] crypto: ccp: Handle the legacy TMR allocation when SNP is enabled Brijesh Singh
2021-07-14 13:22   ` Marc Orr
2021-07-14 16:45     ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-14 18:14       ` Marc Orr
2021-07-15 23:48   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-16 12:55     ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-16 15:35       ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-16 15:47         ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-07 18:35 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 16/40] crypto: ccp: Handle the legacy SEV command " Brijesh Singh
2021-07-07 18:35 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 17/40] crypto: ccp: Add the SNP_PLATFORM_STATUS command Brijesh Singh
2021-07-07 18:35 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 18/40] crypto: ccp: Add the SNP_{SET,GET}_EXT_CONFIG command Brijesh Singh
2021-07-07 18:35 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 19/40] crypto: ccp: provide APIs to query extended attestation report Brijesh Singh
2021-07-07 18:35 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 20/40] KVM: SVM: Make AVIC backing, VMSA and VMCB memory allocation SNP safe Brijesh Singh
2021-07-14 13:35   ` Marc Orr
2021-07-14 16:47     ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-20 18:02   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-08-03 14:38     ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-07 18:35 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 21/40] KVM: SVM: Add initial SEV-SNP support Brijesh Singh
2021-07-16 18:00   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-16 18:46     ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-16 19:31       ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-16 21:03         ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-07 18:35 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 22/40] KVM: SVM: Add KVM_SNP_INIT command Brijesh Singh
2021-07-16 19:33   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-16 21:25     ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-19 20:24       ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-07 18:35 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 23/40] KVM: SVM: Add KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_START command Brijesh Singh
2021-07-12 18:45   ` Peter Gonda
2021-07-16 19:43   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-16 21:42     ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-07 18:36 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 24/40] KVM: SVM: Add KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_UPDATE command Brijesh Singh
2021-07-16 20:01   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-16 22:00     ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-19 20:51       ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-19 21:34         ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-19 21:36           ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-07 18:36 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 25/40] KVM: SVM: Reclaim the guest pages when SEV-SNP VM terminates Brijesh Singh
2021-07-16 20:09   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-16 22:16     ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-17  0:46       ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-19 12:55         ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-19 17:18           ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-19 18:34             ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-19 19:03               ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-19 19:14                 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-19 19:37                 ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-20 16:40                   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-20 18:23                     ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-07 18:36 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 26/40] KVM: SVM: Add KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_FINISH command Brijesh Singh
2021-07-16 20:18   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-16 22:48     ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-19 16:54       ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-19 18:29         ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-19 19:14           ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-19 19:49             ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-19 20:13               ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-21 17:53         ` Marc Orr
2021-07-07 18:36 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 27/40] KVM: X86: Add kvm_x86_ops to get the max page level for the TDP Brijesh Singh
2021-07-16 19:19   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-16 20:41     ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-20 19:38       ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-20 20:06         ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-07 18:36 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 28/40] KVM: X86: Introduce kvm_mmu_map_tdp_page() for use by SEV Brijesh Singh
2021-07-16 18:15   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-07 18:36 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 29/40] KVM: X86: Introduce kvm_mmu_get_tdp_walk() for SEV-SNP use Brijesh Singh
2021-07-07 18:36 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 30/40] KVM: X86: Define new RMP check related #NPF error bits Brijesh Singh
2021-07-16 20:22   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-17  0:34     ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-07 18:36 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 31/40] KVM: X86: update page-fault trace to log the 64-bit error code Brijesh Singh
2021-07-16 20:25   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-17  0:35     ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-07 18:36 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 32/40] KVM: SVM: Add support to handle GHCB GPA register VMGEXIT Brijesh Singh
2021-07-16 20:45   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-17  0:44     ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-19 20:04       ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-07 18:36 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 33/40] KVM: SVM: Add support to handle MSR based Page State Change VMGEXIT Brijesh Singh
2021-07-16 21:00   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-19 14:19     ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-19 18:55       ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-19 19:15         ` Brijesh Singh
2021-08-13 16:32         ` Borislav Petkov
2021-07-07 18:36 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 34/40] KVM: SVM: Add support to handle " Brijesh Singh
2021-07-16 21:14   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-19 14:24     ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-07 18:36 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 35/40] KVM: Add arch hooks to track the host write to guest memory Brijesh Singh
2021-07-19 23:30   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-20 15:15     ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-07 18:36 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 36/40] KVM: X86: Export the kvm_zap_gfn_range() for the SNP use Brijesh Singh
2021-07-07 18:36 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 37/40] KVM: SVM: Add support to handle the RMP nested page fault Brijesh Singh
2021-07-20  0:10   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-20 17:55     ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-20 22:31       ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-20 23:53         ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-21 20:15           ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-07 18:36 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 38/40] KVM: SVM: Provide support for SNP_GUEST_REQUEST NAE event Brijesh Singh
2021-07-19 22:50   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-20 14:37     ` Brijesh Singh
2021-07-20 16:28       ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-20 18:21         ` Brijesh Singh [this message]
2021-07-20 22:09           ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-07 18:36 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 39/40] KVM: SVM: Use a VMSA physical address variable for populating VMCB Brijesh Singh
2021-07-21  0:20   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-21 16:26     ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-07 18:36 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 40/40] KVM: SVM: Support SEV-SNP AP Creation NAE event Brijesh Singh
2021-07-21  0:01   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-21 17:47     ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-21 19:52       ` Sean Christopherson
2021-08-20 14:44         ` Tom Lendacky
2021-07-08 15:40 ` [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 00/40] Add AMD Secure Nested Paging (SEV-SNP) Hypervisor Support Dave Hansen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=0641fdec-48a0-b3b7-9926-3ce5a6e53eb0@amd.com \
    --to=brijesh.singh@amd.com \
    --cc=ardb@kernel.org \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=brijesh.ksingh@gmail.com \
    --cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=dovmurik@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jmattson@google.com \
    --cc=jroedel@suse.de \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-coco@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=luto@kernel.org \
    --cc=michael.roth@amd.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=npmccallum@redhat.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=pgonda@google.com \
    --cc=platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=slp@redhat.com \
    --cc=srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
    --cc=tobin@ibm.com \
    --cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    --cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
    --cc=wanpengli@tencent.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 38/40] KVM: SVM: Provide support for SNP_GUEST_REQUEST NAE event' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
on how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox