[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fce185d2-4420-7255-6331-6231c643c8c7@amd.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 13:04:11 -0500
From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
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>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 00/38] x86: Secure Memory Encryption (AMD)
On 7/8/2017 4:24 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com> wrote:
>
>> This patch series provides support for AMD's new Secure Memory Encryption (SME)
>> feature.
>
> I'm wondering, what's the typical performance hit to DRAM access latency when SME
> is enabled?
It's about an extra 10 cycles of DRAM latency when performing an
encryption or decryption operation.
>
> On that same note, if the performance hit is noticeable I'd expect SME to not be
> enabled in native kernels typically - but still it looks like a useful hardware
In some internal testing we've seen about 1.5% or less reduction in
performance. Of course it all depends on the workload: the number of
memory accesses, cache friendliness, etc.
> feature. Since it's controlled at the page table level, have you considered
> allowing SME-activated vmas via mmap(), even on kernels that are otherwise not
> using encrypted DRAM?
That is definitely something to consider as an additional SME-related
feature and something I can look into after this.
Thanks,
Tom
>
> One would think that putting encryption keys into such encrypted RAM regions would
> generally improve robustness against various physical space attacks that want to
> extract keys but don't have full control of the CPU.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists