On 4/5/21 10:06 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 04, 2021, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>> Le 03/04/2021 à 01:37, Sean Christopherson a écrit :
>>> @@ -152,11 +153,21 @@ static int __sev_do_cmd_locked(int cmd, void *data, int *psp_ret)
>>> sev = psp->sev_data;
>>> buf_len = sev_cmd_buffer_len(cmd);
>>> - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!!data != !!buf_len))
>>> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!!__data != !!buf_len))
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>> - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(data && is_vmalloc_addr(data)))
>>> - return -EINVAL;
>>> + if (__data && is_vmalloc_addr(__data)) {
>>> + /*
>>> + * If the incoming buffer is virtually allocated, copy it to
>>> + * the driver's scratch buffer as __pa() will not work for such
>>> + * addresses, vmalloc_to_page() is not guaranteed to succeed,
>>> + * and vmalloc'd data may not be physically contiguous.
>>> + */
>>> + data = sev->cmd_buf;
>>> + memcpy(data, __data, buf_len);
>>> + } else {
>>> + data = __data;
>>> + }
>> I don't know how big commands are, but if they are small, it would probably
>> be more efficient to inconditionnally copy them to the buffer rather then
>> doing the test.
> Brijesh, I assume SNP support will need to copy the commands unconditionally? If
> yes, it probably makes sense to do so now and avoid vmalloc dependencies
> completely. And I think that would allow for the removal of status_cmd_buf and
> init_cmd_buf, or is there another reason those dedicated buffers exist?
Yes, we need to copy the commands unconditionally for the SNP support.
It makes sense to avoid the vmalloc dependencies. I can't think of any
reason why we would need the status_cmd_buf and init_cmd_buf after those
changes.
