Re: [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 23/40] KVM: SVM: Add KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_START command

[Peter Gonda]

>
> +static int snp_decommission_context(struct kvm *kvm)
> +{
> +       struct kvm_sev_info *sev = &to_kvm_svm(kvm)->sev_info;
> +       struct sev_data_snp_decommission data = {};
> +       int ret;
> +
> +       /* If context is not created then do nothing */
> +       if (!sev->snp_context)
> +               return 0;
> +
> +       data.gctx_paddr = __sme_pa(sev->snp_context);
> +       ret = snp_guest_decommission(&data, NULL);
> +       if (ret)
> +               return ret;

Should we WARN or pr_err here? I see in the case of
snp_launch_start's e_free_context we do not warn the user they have
leaked a firmware page.

>
> +
> +       /* free the context page now */
> +       snp_free_firmware_page(sev->snp_context);
> +       sev->snp_context = NULL;
> +
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +
>  void sev_vm_destroy(struct kvm *kvm)
>  {
>         struct kvm_sev_info *sev = &to_kvm_svm(kvm)->sev_info;
> @@ -1847,7 +1969,15 @@ void sev_vm_destroy(struct kvm *kvm)
>
>         mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
>
> -       sev_unbind_asid(kvm, sev->handle);
> +       if (sev_snp_guest(kvm)) {
> +               if (snp_decommission_context(kvm)) {
> +                       pr_err("Failed to free SNP guest context, leaking asid!\n");

Should these errors be a WARN since we are leaking some state?


> +                       return;
> +               }
> +       } else {
> +               sev_unbind_asid(kvm, sev->handle);
> +       }
> +
>         sev_asid_free(sev);
>  }
>