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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 08:26:01 -0500 From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com> To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> CC: kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>, "linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>, Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 04/20] x86: Secure Memory Encryption (SME) support On 08/30/2016 09:57 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Aug 30, 2016 6:34 AM, "Tom Lendacky" <thomas.lendacky@....com> wrote: >> >> 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. > > None of that sounds like it needs to be in asm, though. > > I, at least, have a strong preference for minimizing the amount of asm > in the low-level arch code. I can take a look at converting it over to C code. Thanks, Tom > > --Andy >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists