[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <67926f62-a068-6114-92ee-39bc08488b32@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:57:17 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>, 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
Cc: 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>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
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 09/32] x86/mm: Provide general kernel support for
memory encryption
On 04/24/2017 08:53 AM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 4/21/2017 4:52 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 04/18/2017 02:17 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>>> @@ -55,7 +57,7 @@ static inline void copy_user_page(void *to, void
>>> *from, unsigned long vaddr,
>>> __phys_addr_symbol(__phys_reloc_hide((unsigned long)(x)))
>>>
>>> #ifndef __va
>>> -#define __va(x) ((void *)((unsigned long)(x)+PAGE_OFFSET))
>>> +#define __va(x) ((void *)(__sme_clr(x) + PAGE_OFFSET))
>>> #endif
>>
>> It seems wrong to be modifying __va(). It currently takes a physical
>> address, and this modifies it to take a physical address plus the SME
>> bits.
>
> This actually modifies it to be sure the encryption bit is not part of
> the physical address.
If SME bits make it this far, we have a bug elsewhere. Right? Probably
best not to paper over it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists