[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1706211720060.2328@nanos>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 17:38:04 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.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,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, xen-devel@...ts.xen.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
Toshimitsu Kani <toshi.kani@....com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 08/36] x86/mm: Add support to enable SME in early boot
processing
On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 6/21/2017 2:16 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Why is this an unconditional function? Isn't the mask simply 0 when the MEM
> > ENCRYPT support is disabled?
>
> I made it unconditional because of the call from head_64.S. I can't make
> use of the C level static inline function and since the mask is not a
> variable if CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT is not configured (#defined to 0) I
> can't reference the variable directly.
>
> I could create a #define in head_64.S that changes this to load rax with
> the variable if CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT is configured or a zero if it's
> not or add a #ifdef at that point in the code directly. Thoughts on
> that?
See below.
> > That does not make any sense. Neither the call to sme_encrypt_kernel() nor
> > the following call to sme_get_me_mask().
> >
> > __startup_64() is already C code, so why can't you simply call that from
> > __startup_64() in C and return the mask from there?
>
> I was trying to keep it explicit as to what was happening, but I can
> move those calls into __startup_64().
That's much preferred. And the return value wants to be documented in both
C and ASM code.
> I'll still need the call to sme_get_me_mask() in the secondary_startup_64
> path, though (depending on your thoughts to the above response).
call verify_cpu
movq $(init_top_pgt - __START_KERNEL_map), %rax
So if you make that:
/*
* Sanitize CPU configuration and retrieve the modifier
* for the initial pgdir entry which will be programmed
* into CR3. Depends on enabled SME encryption, normally 0.
*/
call __startup_secondary_64
addq $(init_top_pgt - __START_KERNEL_map), %rax
You can hide that stuff in C-code nicely without adding any cruft to the
ASM code.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists