/*
* Start looking for reserved blocks at the
* beginning of the TDMR.
*/
prev_end = tdmr->base;
- list_for_each_entry(tmb, tmb_list, list) {
+ for (i = 0; i < sysinfo_cmr->num_cmrs; i++) {
u64 start, end;
- start = PFN_PHYS(tmb->start_pfn);
- end = PFN_PHYS(tmb->end_pfn);
+ start = sysinfo_cmr->cmr_base[i];
+ end = start + sysinfo_cmr->cmr_size[i];
This had me go check the inclusive vs exclusive range comparisons. Even
though it is not in this patch I think tdmr_populate_rsvd_holes() needs
this fixup:
diff --git a/arch/x86/virt/vmx/tdx/tdx.c b/arch/x86/virt/vmx/tdx/tdx.c
index 4e2b2e2ac9f9..b5026edf1eeb 100644
--- a/arch/x86/virt/vmx/tdx/tdx.c
+++ b/arch/x86/virt/vmx/tdx/tdx.c
@@ -776,7 +776,7 @@ static int tdmr_populate_rsvd_holes(struct list_head *tmb_list,
break;
/* Exclude regions before this TDMR */
- if (end < tdmr->base)
+ if (end <= tdmr->base)
continue;
/*
...because a CMR that ends at tdmr->base is still "before" the TDMR.
I think you are right. Thanks for catching this.
But in practice this will not cause any problem because the check right
after it:
/*
* Skip over memory areas that
* have already been dealt with.
*/
if (start <= prev_end) {
prev_end = end;
continue;
}
.. will always be true and effectively skip this region.
So it is just a matter of 'skipping the region one step earlier or later'.
As that's a separate fixup you can add for this patch.
Yeah I agree logically this fixup is needed. I'll send out as a
separate patch and see.
Reviewed-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
Thanks!
