[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1608251503340.5714@nanos>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 15:04:06 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
cc: linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 04/20] x86: Secure Memory Encryption (SME)
support
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> Provide support for Secure Memory Encryption (SME). This initial support
> defines the memory encryption mask as a variable for quick access and an
> accessor for retrieving the number of physical addressing bits lost if
> SME is enabled.
What is the reason that this needs to live in assembly code?
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists