Re: [PATCH 3/3] fs/core/vmcore: Move sev_active() reference to x86 arch code

["Lendacky, Thomas" <Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com>]

On 7/15/19 9:30 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 04:03:17PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
>>> I thought about that but couldn't put my finger on a general concept.
>>> Is it "guest with memory inaccessible to the host"?
>>>
>>
>> Well, force_dma_unencrypted() is a much better name thatn sev_active():
>> s390 has no AMD SEV, that is sure, but for virtio to work we do need to
>> make our dma accessible to the hypervisor. Yes, your "guest with memory
>> inaccessible to the host" shows into the right direction IMHO.
>> Unfortunately I don't have too many cycles to spend on this right now.
> 
> In x86 it means that we need to remove dma encryption using
> set_memory_decrypted before using it for DMA purposes.  In the SEV
> case that seems to be so that the hypervisor can access it, in the SME
> case that Tom just fixes it is because there is an encrypted bit set
> in the physical address, and if the device doesn't support a large
> enough DMA address the direct mapping code has to encrypt the pages
> used for the contigous allocation.

Just a correction/clarification...

For SME, when a device doesn't support a large enough DMA address to
accommodate the encryption bit as part of the DMA address, the direct
mapping code has to provide un-encrypted pages. For un-encrypted pages,
the DMA address now does not include the encryption bit, making it
acceptable to the device. Since the device is now using a DMA address
without the encryption bit, the physical address in the CPU page table
must match (the call to set_memory_decrypted) so that both the device and
the CPU interact in the same way with the memory.

Thanks,
Tom

> 
>> Being on cc for your patch made me realize that things got broken on
>> s390. Thanks! I've sent out a patch that fixes protvirt, but we are going
>> to benefit from your cleanups. I think with your cleanups and that patch
>> of mine both sev_active() and sme_active() can be removed. Feel free to
>> do so. If not, I can attend to it as well.
> 
> Yes, I think with the dma-mapping fix and this series sme_active and
> sev_active should be gone from common code.  We should also be able
> to remove the exports x86 has for them.
> 
> I'll wait a few days and will then feed the dma-mapping fix to Linus,
> it might make sense to either rebase Thiagos series on top of the
> dma-mapping for-next branch, or wait a few days before reposting.
>