[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1706212051120.2152@nanos>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 20:52:47 +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 10:38 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > /*
> > * 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.
> >
>
> Moving the call to verify_cpu into the C-code might be quite a bit of
> change. Currently, the verify_cpu code is included code and not a
> global function.
Ah. Ok. I missed that.
> I can still do the __startup_secondary_64() function and then look to
> incorporate verify_cpu into both __startup_64() and
> __startup_secondary_64() as a post-patch to this series.
Yes, just having __startup_secondary_64() for now and there the extra bits
for that encryption stuff is fine.
> At least the secondary path will have a base C routine to which
> modifications can be made in the future if needed. How does that sound?
Sounds like a plan.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists