Re: [PATCH Part2 v6 02/49] iommu/amd: Introduce function to check SEV-SNP support

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 04:28:12AM +0300, jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 11:50:59AM -0600, Peter Gonda wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 11:45 AM Kalra, Ashish <Ashish.Kalra@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > >
> > > Hello Peter,
> > >
> > > >> +bool iommu_sev_snp_supported(void)
> > > >> +{
> > > >> +       struct amd_iommu *iommu;
> > > >> +
> > > >> +       /*
> > > >> +        * The SEV-SNP support requires that IOMMU must be enabled, and is
> > > >> +        * not configured in the passthrough mode.
> > > >> +        */
> > > >> +       if (no_iommu || iommu_default_passthrough()) {
> > > >> +               pr_err("SEV-SNP: IOMMU is either disabled or
> > > >> + configured in passthrough mode.\n");
> > >
> > > > Like below could this say something like snp support is disabled because of iommu settings.
> > >
> > > Here we may need to be more precise with the error information indicating why SNP is not enabled.
> > > Please note that this patch may actually become part of the IOMMU + SNP patch series, where
> > > additional checks are done, for example, not enabling SNP if IOMMU v2 page tables are enabled,
> > > so precise error information will be useful here.
> > 
> > I agree we should be more precise. I just thought we should explicitly
> > state something like: "SEV-SNP: IOMMU is either disabled or configured
> > in passthrough mode, SNP cannot be supported".
> 
> It really should be, in order to have any practical use:
> 
> 	if (no_iommu) {
> 		pr_err("SEV-SNP: IOMMU is disabled.\n");
> 		return false;
> 	}
> 
> 	if (iommu_default_passthrough()) {
> 		pr_err("SEV-SNP: IOMMU is configured in passthrough mode.\n");
> 		return false;
> 	}
> 
> The comment is *completely* redundant, it absolutely does
> not serve any sane purpose. It just tells what the code
> already clearly stating.
> 
> The combo error message on the other hand leaves you to
> the question "which one was it", and for that reason
> combining the checks leaves you to a louse debugging
> experience.

Also, are those really *errors*? That implies that there
is something wrong.

Since you can have a legit configuration, IMHO they should
be either warn or info. What do you think?

They are definitely not errors.

BR, Jarkko




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux