search for: pv_init

...(void) this is also ugly. the correct solution would be probably to refactor everything, including all the AMD SEV code.... let's not go there > +{ > + return is_prot_virt_guest(); > +} > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sev_active); > + > +/* protected virtualization */ > +static void pv_init(void) > +{ > + if (!sev_active()) can't you just use is_prot_virt_guest here? > + return; > + > + /* make sure bounce buffers are shared */ > + swiotlb_init(1); > + swiotlb_update_mem_attributes(); > + swiotlb_force = SWIOTLB_FORCE; > +} > + > void __init me...

...(void) this is also ugly. the correct solution would be probably to refactor everything, including all the AMD SEV code.... let's not go there > +{ > + return is_prot_virt_guest(); > +} > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sev_active); > + > +/* protected virtualization */ > +static void pv_init(void) > +{ > + if (!sev_active()) can't you just use is_prot_virt_guest here? > + return; > + > + /* make sure bounce buffers are shared */ > + swiotlb_init(1); > + swiotlb_update_mem_attributes(); > + swiotlb_force = SWIOTLB_FORCE; > +} > + > void __init me...

..."support for limited memory access required for protected virtualization\n"); > > > + return -ENODEV; > > > + } > > > + > > > + return 0; > > > +} > > > + > > > /* protected virtualization */ > > > static void pv_init(void) > > > { > > What bothers me here is that arch code depends on virtio now. > > It works even with a modular virtio when functions are inline, > > but it seems fragile: e.g. it breaks virtio as an out of tree module, > > since layout of struct virtio_device ca...

..."support for limited memory access required for protected virtualization\n"); > > > + return -ENODEV; > > > + } > > > + > > > + return 0; > > > +} > > > + > > > /* protected virtualization */ > > > static void pv_init(void) > > > { > > What bothers me here is that arch code depends on virtio now. > > It works even with a modular virtio when functions are inline, > > but it seems fragile: e.g. it breaks virtio as an out of tree module, > > since layout of struct virtio_device ca...

An architecture protecting the guest memory against unauthorized host access may want to enforce VIRTIO I/O device protection through the use of VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM. Let's give a chance to the architecture to accept or not devices without VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM. Pierre Morel (1): s390: virtio: let arch accept devices without IOMMU feature arch/s390/mm/init.c | 6 ++++++

...ve it so the code gets exercised. That's the swiotlb stuff, right? (The patches will obviously need some reordering before it is actually getting merged.) > + */ > + return true; > +} > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sev_active); > + > +/* protected virtualization */ > +static void pv_init(void) > +{ > + if (!sev_active()) > + return; > + > + /* make sure bounce buffers are shared */ > + swiotlb_init(1); > + swiotlb_update_mem_attributes(); > + swiotlb_force = SWIOTLB_FORCE; > +} > + > void __init mem_init(void) > { > cpumask_set_cpu(0, &am...

...eature(dev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM)) { > + dev_warn(&dev->dev, > + "support for limited memory access required for protected virtualization\n"); > + return -ENODEV; > + } > + > + return 0; > +} > + > /* protected virtualization */ > static void pv_init(void) > { What bothers me here is that arch code depends on virtio now. It works even with a modular virtio when functions are inline, but it seems fragile: e.g. it breaks virtio as an out of tree module, since layout of struct virtio_device can change. I'm not sure what to do with this y...

...eature(dev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM)) { > + dev_warn(&dev->dev, > + "support for limited memory access required for protected virtualization\n"); > + return -ENODEV; > + } > + > + return 0; > +} > + > /* protected virtualization */ > static void pv_init(void) > { What bothers me here is that arch code depends on virtio now. It works even with a modular virtio when functions are inline, but it seems fragile: e.g. it breaks virtio as an out of tree module, since layout of struct virtio_device can change. I'm not sure what to do with this y...

An architecture protecting the guest memory against unauthorized host access may want to enforce VIRTIO I/O device protection through the use of VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM. Let's give a chance to the architecture to accept or not devices without VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM. Pierre Morel (1): s390: virtio: let arch accept devices without IOMMU feature arch/s390/mm/init.c | 6 ++++++

Hi all, The goal of the series is to give a chance to the architecture to validate VIRTIO device features. in this respin: 1) I kept removed the ack from Jason as I reworked the patch @Jason, the nature and goal of the patch did not really changed please can I get back your acked-by with these changes? 2) Rewording for warning messages Regards, Pierre Pierre Morel (2):

...eturn is_prot_virt_guest(); > } > > +int arch_needs_iommu_platform(struct virtio_device *dev) Maybe prefixing the name with virtio_ would help provide the proper context. > +{ > + return is_prot_virt_guest(); > +} > + > /* protected virtualization */ > static void pv_init(void) > { > diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio.c > index a977e32a88f2..30091089bee8 100644 > --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio.c > +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio.c > @@ -167,6 +167,11 @@ void virtio_add_status(struct virtio_device *dev, unsigned int status) >...

...eturn is_prot_virt_guest(); > } > > +int arch_needs_iommu_platform(struct virtio_device *dev) Maybe prefixing the name with virtio_ would help provide the proper context. > +{ > + return is_prot_virt_guest(); > +} > + > /* protected virtualization */ > static void pv_init(void) > { > diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio.c > index a977e32a88f2..30091089bee8 100644 > --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio.c > +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio.c > @@ -167,6 +167,11 @@ void virtio_add_status(struct virtio_device *dev, unsigned int status) >...

...) { + uv_set_shared(addr); + addr += PAGE_SIZE; + } + return 0; +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(set_memory_decrypted); + +/* are we a protected virtualization guest? */ +bool sev_active(void) +{ + return is_prot_virt_guest(); +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sev_active); + +/* protected virtualization */ +static void pv_init(void) +{ + if (!sev_active()) + return; + + /* make sure bounce buffers are shared */ + swiotlb_init(1); + swiotlb_update_mem_attributes(); + swiotlb_force = SWIOTLB_FORCE; +} + void __init mem_init(void) { cpumask_set_cpu(0, &init_mm.context.cpu_attach_mask); @@ -134,6 +182,8 @@ void __in...

...-161,6 +162,11 @@ bool force_dma_unencrypted(struct device *dev) > return is_prot_virt_guest(); > } > > +int arch_needs_virtio_iommu_platform(struct virtio_device *dev) > +{ > + return is_prot_virt_guest(); > +} > + > /* protected virtualization */ > static void pv_init(void) Can we please stop dumping random code to arch/s390/mm/init.c? All the protected virtualization functions should go into a separate file (e.g. mem_encrypt.c like on x86), some of which could also be in header files. Please consider this a comment for the future.. just go ahead with this pa...

...-161,6 +162,11 @@ bool force_dma_unencrypted(struct device *dev) > return is_prot_virt_guest(); > } > > +int arch_needs_virtio_iommu_platform(struct virtio_device *dev) > +{ > + return is_prot_virt_guest(); > +} > + > /* protected virtualization */ > static void pv_init(void) Can we please stop dumping random code to arch/s390/mm/init.c? All the protected virtualization functions should go into a separate file (e.g. mem_encrypt.c like on x86), some of which could also be in header files. Please consider this a comment for the future.. just go ahead with this pa...

...d pages shared (swiotlb, dma_alloca) */ + for (i = 0; i < numpages; ++i) { + uv_set_shared(addr); + addr += PAGE_SIZE; + } + return 0; +} + +/* are we a protected virtualization guest? */ +bool sev_active(void) +{ + return is_prot_virt_guest(); +} + +/* protected virtualization */ +static void pv_init(void) +{ + if (!is_prot_virt_guest()) + return; + + /* make sure bounce buffers are shared */ + swiotlb_init(1); + swiotlb_update_mem_attributes(); + swiotlb_force = SWIOTLB_FORCE; +} + void __init mem_init(void) { cpumask_set_cpu(0, &init_mm.context.cpu_attach_mask); @@ -136,6 +181,8 @@ v...

...d pages shared (swiotlb, dma_alloca) */ + for (i = 0; i < numpages; ++i) { + uv_set_shared(addr); + addr += PAGE_SIZE; + } + return 0; +} + +/* are we a protected virtualization guest? */ +bool sev_active(void) +{ + return is_prot_virt_guest(); +} + +/* protected virtualization */ +static void pv_init(void) +{ + if (!is_prot_virt_guest()) + return; + + /* make sure bounce buffers are shared */ + swiotlb_init(1); + swiotlb_update_mem_attributes(); + swiotlb_force = SWIOTLB_FORCE; +} + void __init mem_init(void) { cpumask_set_cpu(0, &init_mm.context.cpu_attach_mask); @@ -136,6 +181,8 @@ v...

...d pages shared (swiotlb, dma_alloca) */ + for (i = 0; i < numpages; ++i) { + uv_set_shared(addr); + addr += PAGE_SIZE; + } + return 0; +} + +/* are we a protected virtualization guest? */ +bool sev_active(void) +{ + return is_prot_virt_guest(); +} + +/* protected virtualization */ +static void pv_init(void) +{ + if (!is_prot_virt_guest()) + return; + + /* make sure bounce buffers are shared */ + swiotlb_init(1); + swiotlb_update_mem_attributes(); + swiotlb_force = SWIOTLB_FORCE; +} + void __init mem_init(void) { cpumask_set_cpu(0, &init_mm.context.cpu_attach_mask); @@ -136,6 +181,8 @@ v...

...d pages shared (swiotlb, dma_alloca) */ + for (i = 0; i < numpages; ++i) { + uv_set_shared(addr); + addr += PAGE_SIZE; + } + return 0; +} + +/* are we a protected virtualization guest? */ +bool sev_active(void) +{ + return is_prot_virt_guest(); +} + +/* protected virtualization */ +static void pv_init(void) +{ + if (!is_prot_virt_guest()) + return; + + /* make sure bounce buffers are shared */ + swiotlb_init(1); + swiotlb_update_mem_attributes(); + swiotlb_force = SWIOTLB_FORCE; +} + void __init mem_init(void) { cpumask_set_cpu(0, &init_mm.context.cpu_attach_mask); @@ -136,6 +181,8 @@ v...

...U_PLATFORM\n"); "support for limited memory access required for protected virtualization" ? Mentioning the feature flag is shorter in both cases, though. > + return -ENODEV; > + } > + > + return 0; > +} > + > /* protected virtualization */ > static void pv_init(void) > { Either way, Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck at redhat.com>