On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 10:49:00AM -0800, Steve Rutherford wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 6:57 AM Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> +int svm_vm_copy_asid_to(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned int mirror_kvm_fd)
> > >> +{
> > >> + struct file *mirror_kvm_file;
> > >> + struct kvm *mirror_kvm;
> > >> + struct kvm_sev_info *mirror_kvm_sev;
> > >> + unsigned int asid;
> > >> + int ret;
> > >> +
> > >> + if (!sev_guest(kvm))
> > >> + return -ENOTTY;
> > >
> > > You definitely don't want this: this is the function that turns the vm
> > > into an SEV guest (marks SEV as active).
> >
> > The sev_guest() function does not set sev->active, it only checks it. The
> > sev_guest_init() function is where sev->active is set.
> Sorry, bad use of the english on my part: the "this" was referring to
> svm_vm_copy_asid_to. Right now, you could only pass this sev_guest
> check if you had already called sev_guest_init, which seems incorrect.
> >
> > >
> > > (Not an issue with this patch, but a broader issue) I believe
> > > sev_guest lacks the necessary acquire/release barriers on sev->active,
> >
> > The svm_mem_enc_op() takes the kvm lock and that is the only way into the
> > sev_guest_init() function where sev->active is set.
> There are a few places that check sev->active which don't have the kvm
> lock, which is not problematic if we add in a few compiler barriers
> (ala irqchip_split et al).
Probably, sev->active accesses can be made safe using READ_ONCE() &
WRITE_ONCE().
Thanks,
Ashish
