On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 05:16:57PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/sev-es.c b/arch/x86/kernel/sev-es.c
> index a4fa7f351bf2..bc3a58427028 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/sev-es.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/sev-es.c
> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
> #include <linux/sched/debug.h> /* For show_regs() */
> #include <linux/percpu-defs.h>
> #include <linux/mem_encrypt.h>
> +#include <linux/lockdep.h>
> #include <linux/printk.h>
> #include <linux/mm_types.h>
> #include <linux/set_memory.h>
> @@ -25,7 +26,7 @@
> #include <asm/insn-eval.h>
> #include <asm/fpu/internal.h>
> #include <asm/processor.h>
> -#include <asm/trap_defs.h>
> +#include <asm/traps.h>
> #include <asm/svm.h>
>
> /* For early boot hypervisor communication in SEV-ES enabled guests */
> @@ -46,10 +47,26 @@ struct sev_es_runtime_data {
>
> /* Physical storage for the per-cpu IST stacks of the #VC handler */
> struct vmm_exception_stacks vc_stacks __aligned(PAGE_SIZE);
> +
> + /* Reserve on page per CPU as backup storage for the unencrypted GHCB */
one
> + struct ghcb backup_ghcb;
I could use some text explaining what those backups are for?
> + /*
> + * Mark the per-cpu GHCBs as in-use to detect nested #VC exceptions.
> + * There is no need for it to be atomic, because nothing is written to
> + * the GHCB between the read and the write of ghcb_active. So it is safe
> + * to use it when a nested #VC exception happens before the write.
> + */
Looks liks that is that text... support for nested #VC exceptions.
I'm sure this has come up already but why do we even want to support
nested #VCs? IOW, can we do without them first or are they absolutely
necessary?
I'm guessing VC exceptions inside the VC handler but what are the
sensible use cases?
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
