On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 05:07:24PM -0700, Nuno Das Neves wrote:
> Resend in plain text instead of HTML - oops!
>
> On 9/23/2023 12:58 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> >On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 11:38:35AM -0700, Nuno Das Neves wrote:
> >>+static int mshv_vtl_get_vsm_regs(void)
> >>+{
> >>+ struct hv_register_assoc registers[2];
> >>+ union hv_input_vtl input_vtl;
> >>+ int ret, count = 2;
> >>+
> >>+ input_vtl.as_uint8 = 0;
> >>+ registers[0].name = HV_REGISTER_VSM_CODE_PAGE_OFFSETS;
> >>+ registers[1].name = HV_REGISTER_VSM_CAPABILITIES;
> >>+
> >>+ ret = hv_call_get_vp_registers(HV_VP_INDEX_SELF, HV_PARTITION_ID_SELF,
> >>+ count, input_vtl, registers);
> >>+ if (ret)
> >>+ return ret;
> >>+
> >>+ mshv_vsm_page_offsets.as_uint64 = registers[0].value.reg64;
> >>+ mshv_vsm_capabilities.as_uint64 = registers[1].value.reg64;
> >>+
> >>+ pr_debug("%s: VSM code page offsets: %#016llx\n", __func__,
> >>+ mshv_vsm_page_offsets.as_uint64);
> >>+ pr_info("%s: VSM capabilities: %#016llx\n", __func__,
> >>+ mshv_vsm_capabilities.as_uint64);
> >
> >When drivers are working properly, they are quiet. This is very noisy
> >and probably is leaking memory addresses to userspace?
> >
>
> I will remove these, thanks.
>
> >Also, there is NEVER a need for __func__ in a pr_debug() line, it has
> >that for you automatically.
> >
>
> Thank you, I didn't know this.
>
> >Also, drivers should never call pr_*() calls, always use the proper
> >dev_*() calls instead.
> >
>
> We only use struct device in one place in this driver, I think that
> is the only place it makes sense to use dev_*() over pr_*() calls.
> >
> >
> >>+
> >>+ return ret;
> >>+}
> >>+
> >>+static int mshv_vtl_configure_vsm_partition(void)
> >>+{
> >>+ union hv_register_vsm_partition_config config;
> >>+ struct hv_register_assoc reg_assoc;
> >>+ union hv_input_vtl input_vtl;
> >>+
> >>+ config.as_u64 = 0;
> >>+ config.default_vtl_protection_mask = HV_MAP_GPA_PERMISSIONS_MASK;
> >>+ config.enable_vtl_protection = 1;
> >>+ config.zero_memory_on_reset = 1;
> >>+ config.intercept_vp_startup = 1;
> >>+ config.intercept_cpuid_unimplemented = 1;
> >>+
> >>+ if (mshv_vsm_capabilities.intercept_page_available) {
> >>+ pr_debug("%s: using intercept page", __func__);
> >
> >Again, __func__ is not needed, you are providing it twice here for no
> >real reason except to waste storage space :)
> >
>
> Thanks, I will review all the uses of pr_debug().
>
> >>+ config.intercept_page = 1;
> >>+ }
> >>+
> >>+ reg_assoc.name = HV_REGISTER_VSM_PARTITION_CONFIG;
> >>+ reg_assoc.value.reg64 = config.as_u64;
> >>+ input_vtl.as_uint8 = 0;
> >>+
> >>+ return hv_call_set_vp_registers(HV_VP_INDEX_SELF, HV_PARTITION_ID_SELF,
> >>+ 1, input_vtl, ®_assoc);
> >
> >
> >None of this needs to be unwound if initialization fails later on?
> >
>
> I think unwinding this is not needed, not 100% sure.
> Saurabh, can you comment?
Yes unwinding is not useful here, as these are synthetic register
and there is no other use case of VSM supporting platforms other
than VSM configuration.
In a non VSM supported platform hv_call_set_vp_registers itself will
fail for HV_REGISTER_VSM_PARTITION_CONFIG.
- Saurabh
>
> Thanks,
> Nuno
>
> >thanks,
> >
> >greg k-h
>
