[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6d266f5b-c28d-fe19-24b5-5133532f9eea@amd.com>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 14:28:42 -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 06/32] x86/mm: Add Secure Memory Encryption (SME)
support
On 5/4/2017 9:36 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 09:24:11AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> I did this so that an the include order wouldn't cause issues (including
>> asm/mem_encrypt.h followed by later by a linux/mem_encrypt.h include).
>> I can make this a bit clearer by having separate #defines for each
>> thing, e.g.:
>>
>> #ifndef sme_me_mask
>> #define sme_me_mask 0UL
>> #endif
>>
>> #ifndef sme_active
>> #define sme_active sme_active
>> static inline ...
>> #endif
>>
>> Is that better/clearer?
>
> I guess but where do we have to include both the asm/ and the linux/
> version?
It's more of the sequence of various includes. For example,
init/do_mounts.c includes <linux/module.h> that eventually gets down
to <asm/pgtable_types.h> and then <asm/mem_encrypt.h>. However, a
bit further down <linux/nfs_fs.h> is included which eventually gets
down to <linux/dma-mapping.h> and then <linux/mem_encyrpt.h>.
>
> IOW, can we avoid these issues altogether by partitioning symbol
> declarations differently among the headers?
It's most problematic when CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT is not defined since
we never include an asm/ version from the linux/ path. I could create
a mem_encrypt.h in include/asm-generic/ that contains the info that
is in the !CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT path of the linux/ version. Let me
look into that.
Thanks,
Tom
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists