Re: [PATCH v12 08/22] x86/virt/tdx: Get information about TDX module and TDX-capable memory

[kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 10:45:33AM +0000, Huang, Kai wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-06-27 at 12:51 +0300, kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 02:12:38AM +1200, Kai Huang wrote:
> > >  static int init_tdx_module(void)
> > >  {
> > > +	struct tdsysinfo_struct *sysinfo;
> > > +	struct cmr_info *cmr_array;
> > > +	int ret;
> > > +
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * Get the TDSYSINFO_STRUCT and CMRs from the TDX module.
> > > +	 *
> > > +	 * The buffers of the TDSYSINFO_STRUCT and the CMR array passed
> > > +	 * to the TDX module must be 1024-bytes and 512-bytes aligned
> > > +	 * respectively.  Allocate one page to accommodate them both and
> > > +	 * also meet those alignment requirements.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	sysinfo = (struct tdsysinfo_struct *)__get_free_page(GFP_KERNEL);
> > > +	if (!sysinfo)
> > > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > > +	cmr_array = (struct cmr_info *)((unsigned long)sysinfo + PAGE_SIZE / 2);
> > > +
> > > +	BUILD_BUG_ON(PAGE_SIZE / 2 < TDSYSINFO_STRUCT_SIZE);
> > > +	BUILD_BUG_ON(PAGE_SIZE / 2 < sizeof(struct cmr_info) * MAX_CMRS);
> > 
> > This works, but why not just use slab for this? kmalloc has 512 and 1024
> > pools already and you won't waste memory for rounding up.
> > 
> > Something like this:
> > 
> >         sysinfo = kmalloc(TDSYSINFO_STRUCT_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
> >         if (!sysinfo)
> >                 return -ENOMEM;
> > 
> >         cmr_array_size = sizeof(struct cmr_info) * MAX_CMRS;
> > 
> >         /* CMR array has to be 512-aligned */
> >         cmr_array_size = round_up(cmr_array_size, 512);
> 
> Should we define a macro for 512
> 
> 	+#define CMR_INFO_ARRAY_ALIGNMENT	512
> 
> And get rid of this comment?  AFAICT Dave didn't like such comment mentioning
> 512-bytes aligned if we have a macro for that.

Good idea.

> >         cmr_array = kmalloc(cmr_array_size, GFP_KERNEL);
> >         if (!cmr_array) {
> >                 kfree(sysinfo);
> >                 return -ENOMEM;
> >         }
> > 
> > ?
> > 
> 
> I confess the reason I used __get_free_page() was to avoid having to allocate
> twice, and in case of failure, I need to handle additional memory free.  But I
> can do if you think it's clearer?

Less trickery is always cleaner. Especially if the trick is not justified.

> I wouldn't worry about wasting memory.  The buffer is freed anyway for now. 
> Long-termly it's just 4K.

-- 
  Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov