On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 10:04:57AM -0600, Brijesh Singh wrote:
> @@ -287,6 +301,7 @@ struct x86_platform_ops {
> struct x86_legacy_features legacy;
> void (*set_legacy_features)(void);
> struct x86_hyper_runtime hyper;
> + struct x86_guest guest;
> };
I used 'cc' instead of 'guest'. 'guest' looks too generic.
Also, I'm not sure why not to use pointer to ops struct instead of stroing
them directly in x86_platform. Yes, it is consistent with 'hyper', but I
don't see it as a strong argument.
>
> index b4072115c8ef..a55477a6e578 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c
> @@ -2012,8 +2012,15 @@ static int __set_memory_enc_pgtable(unsigned long addr, int numpages, bool enc)
> */
> cpa_flush(&cpa, !this_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SME_COHERENT));
>
> + /* Notify HV that we are about to set/clr encryption attribute. */
> + x86_platform.guest.enc_status_change_prepare(addr, numpages, enc);
> +
> ret = __change_page_attr_set_clr(&cpa, 1);
This doesn't cover difference in flushing requirements. Can we get it too?
>
> + /* Notify HV that we have succesfully set/clr encryption attribute. */
> + if (!ret)
> + x86_platform.guest.enc_status_change_finish(addr, numpages, enc);
> +
Any particular reason you moved it above cpa_flush()? I don't think it
makes a difference for TDX, but still.
> /*
> * After changing the encryption attribute, we need to flush TLBs again
> * in case any speculative TLB caching occurred (but no need to flush
> @@ -2023,12 +2030,6 @@ static int __set_memory_enc_pgtable(unsigned long addr, int numpages, bool enc)
> */
> cpa_flush(&cpa, 0);
>
> - /*
> - * Notify hypervisor that a given memory range is mapped encrypted
> - * or decrypted.
> - */
> - notify_range_enc_status_changed(addr, numpages, enc);
> -
> return ret;
> }
>
> --
> 2.25.1
>
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
