linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 15/20] iommu/amd: AMD IOMMU support for memory encryption

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: <20160916070827.GA23229@nazgul.tnic>
Date:   Fri, 16 Sep 2016 09:08:27 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.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>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 15/20] iommu/amd: AMD IOMMU support for memory
 encryption

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:57:41AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> If I do that, then I could put an #ifdef in the header to include the
> asm/mem_encrypt.h if the memory encryption is configured, else set the
> value to zero.

Yeah, something along those lines...

> I'll look into this. One immediate question becomes do we keep the
> name very specific vs. making it more generic, sme_me_mask vs me_mask,
> etc.

No strong opinion either way from me. My angle is that whatever it is,
we can always rename it later if we decide to.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--