linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 04/20] x86: Secure Memory Encryption (SME) support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e296f12d-7c76-4690-17bd-0f721d739f07@amd.com>
Date:   Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:19:00 -0500
From:   Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
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 08/25/2016 08:04 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 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?

In later patches this code is expanded and deals with a lot of page
table manipulation, cpuid/rdmsr instructions, etc. and so I thought it
was best to do it this way.

Thanks,
Tom

>  
> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx
>