[AMD Official Use Only - General]
Hello Peter,
>> > I don't see anything mechanism for this patch to add the page state change protection discussed. Can't another vCPU still convert the GHCB to private?
>>
>> We do have the protections for GHCB getting mapped to private
>> specifically, there are new post_{map|unmap}_gfn functions added to verify if it is safe to map GHCB pages. There is a PSC spinlock added which protects again page state change for these mapped pages.
>> Below is the reference to this patch:
>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flore
>> .kernel.org%2Flkml%2Fcover.1655761627.git.ashish.kalra%40amd.com%2FT%2
>> F%23mafcaac7296eb9a92c0ea58730dbd3ca47a8e0756&data=05%7C01%7CAshis
>> h.Kalra%40amd.com%7C647218cdb2a040bf354e08da60fa2968%7C3dd8961fe4884e6
>> 08e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637928924845082803%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d
>> 8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C
>> 3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ss8%2F5qualccXQero9phARIG2wvYhtp8SMdve3GglZeU%
>> 3D&reserved=0
>>
>> But do note that there is protection only for GHCB pages and there is
>> a need to add generic post_{map,unmap}_gfn() ops that can be used to verify that it's safe to map a given guest page in the hypervisor. This is a TODO right now and probably this is something which UPM can address more cleanly.
>Thank you Ashish. I had missed that.
>Can you help me understand why its OK to use kvm_write_guest() for the
>|snp_certs_data| inside of snp_handle_ext_guest_request() in patch
>42/49? I would have thought we'd have the same 2M vs 4K mapping issues.
Preemption is not disabled there, hence the RMP page fault handler can do
the split of 2M to 4K on host pages without any issues.
Thanks,
Ashish
