From: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppusw...@linux.intel.com>
>
> >>> @@ -886,6 +901,8 @@ int vmbus_teardown_gpadl(struct vmbus_channel
> >>> *channel, struct vmbus_gpadl *gpad
> >>> if (ret)
> >>> pr_warn("Fail to set mem host visibility in GPADL teardown
> >>> %d.\n", ret);
> >>
> >> Will this be called only if vmbus_establish_gpad() is successful? If not,
> >> you
> >> might want to skip set_memory_encrypted() call for decrypted = false case.
> >
> > It's only called if vmbus_establish_gpadl() is successful. I agree
> > we don't want to call set_memory_encrypted() if the
> > set_memory_decrypted() wasn't executed or it failed. But
> > vmbus_teardown_gpadl() is never called with decrypted = false.
>
> Since you rely on vmbus_teardown_gpadl() callers, personally I think it
> is better to add that check. It is up to you.
>
In my judgment, a check isn't really necessary. The structure of the GPADL
code has been stable for a long time, and I'm not aware of anything
pending that would motivate a change. And if something did change
to call vmbus_teardown_gpadl() with the memory still encrypted,
the call to set_memory_encrypted() will cause an immediate error and
a WARN_ONCE from Rick's patch to __set_memory_enc_pgtable().
The problem won't go unnoticed.
Michael
