Re: [Patch v3 07/14] x86/hyperv: Change vTOM handling to use standard coco mechanisms

[Borislav Petkov]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 10:41:30AM -0800, Michael Kelley wrote:
> Hyper-V guests on AMD SEV-SNP hardware have the option of using the
> "virtual Top Of Memory" (vTOM) feature specified by the SEV-SNP
> architecture. With vTOM, shared vs. private memory accesses are
> controlled by splitting the guest physical address space into two
> halves.  vTOM is the dividing line where the uppermost bit of the
> physical address space is set; e.g., with 47 bits of guest physical
> address space, vTOM is 0x40000000000 (bit 46 is set).  Guest phyiscal

Unknown word [phyiscal] in commit message.
Suggestions: ['physical', 'physically', ... ]

Please introduce a spellchecker into your patch creation workflow.

...

> @@ -108,6 +115,7 @@ u64 cc_mkenc(u64 val)
>  	switch (vendor) {
>  	case CC_VENDOR_AMD:
>  		return val | cc_mask;
> +	case CC_VENDOR_HYPERV:
>  	case CC_VENDOR_INTEL:
>  		return val & ~cc_mask;
>  	default:
> @@ -121,6 +129,7 @@ u64 cc_mkdec(u64 val)
>  	switch (vendor) {
>  	case CC_VENDOR_AMD:
>  		return val & ~cc_mask;
> +	case CC_VENDOR_HYPERV:
>  	case CC_VENDOR_INTEL:
>  		return val | cc_mask;
>  	default:

Uuuh, this needs a BIG FAT COMMENT.

You're running on SNP and yet the enc/dec meaning is flipped. And that's
because of vTOM.

What happens if you have other types of SNP-based VMs on HyperV? The
isolation VMs thing? Or is that the same?

What happens when you do TDX guests with HyperV?

This becomes wrong then.

I think you need a more finer-grained check here in the sense of "is it
a HyperV guest using a paravisor and vTOM is enabled" or so.

Otherwise, I like the removal of the HyperV-specific checks ofc.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette