[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aaa52e93-5875-6033-e72f-8fc3de43ca3a@amd.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:29:20 -0500
From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
<kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
<x86@...nel.org>, <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Toshimitsu Kani <toshi.kani@....com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 05/32] x86/CPU/AMD: Handle SME reduction in physical
address size
On 4/20/2017 11:59 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 04:17:11PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> When System Memory Encryption (SME) is enabled, the physical address
>> space is reduced. Adjust the x86_phys_bits value to reflect this
>> reduction.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c | 14 +++++++++++---
>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> ...
>
>> @@ -622,8 +624,14 @@ static void early_init_amd(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
>>
>> /* Check if SME is enabled */
>> rdmsrl(MSR_K8_SYSCFG, msr);
>> - if (!(msr & MSR_K8_SYSCFG_MEM_ENCRYPT))
>> + if (msr & MSR_K8_SYSCFG_MEM_ENCRYPT) {
>> + unsigned int ebx;
>> +
>> + ebx = cpuid_ebx(0x8000001f);
>> + c->x86_phys_bits -= (ebx >> 6) & 0x3f;
>> + } else {
>> clear_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_SME);
>> + }
>
> Lemme do some simplifying to save an indent level, get rid of local var
> ebx and kill some { }-brackets for a bit better readability:
>
> if (c->extended_cpuid_level >= 0x8000001f) {
> u64 msr;
>
> if (!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_SME))
> return;
>
> /* Check if SME is enabled */
> rdmsrl(MSR_K8_SYSCFG, msr);
> if (msr & MSR_K8_SYSCFG_MEM_ENCRYPT)
> c->x86_phys_bits -= (cpuid_ebx(0x8000001f) >> 6) & 0x3f;
> else
> clear_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_SME);
> }
>
Hmmm... and actually if cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SME) is true then it's a
given that extended_cpuid_level >= 0x8000001f. So this can be
simplified to just:
if (cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_SME)) {
... the rest of your suggestion (minus cpu_has()) ...
}
Thanks,
Tom
Powered by blists - more mailing lists