[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a1daf0f5-57cb-d9c3-79f7-3d4852c35974@amd.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 13:10:45 -0500
From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Piotr Luc <piotr.luc@...el.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
Reza Arbab <arbab@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Dave Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC Part1 PATCH v3 07/17] x86/mm: Include SEV for encryption
memory attribute changes
On 7/27/2017 9:58 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 02:07:47PM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote:
>> From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
>>
>> The current code checks only for sme_active() when determining whether
>> to perform the encryption attribute change. Include sev_active() in this
>> check so that memory attribute changes can occur under SME and SEV.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
>> Signed-off-by: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c b/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c
>> index dfb7d65..b726b23 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c
>> @@ -1781,8 +1781,8 @@ static int __set_memory_enc_dec(unsigned long addr, int numpages, bool enc)
>> unsigned long start;
>> int ret;
>>
>> - /* Nothing to do if the SME is not active */
>> - if (!sme_active())
>> + /* Nothing to do if SME and SEV are not active */
>> + if (!sme_active() && !sev_active())
>
> This is the second place which does
>
> if (!SME && !SEV)
>
> I wonder if, instead of sprinking those, we should have a
>
> if (mem_enc_active())
>
> or so which unifies all those memory encryption logic tests and makes
> the code more straightforward for readers who don't have to pay
> attention to SME vs SEV ...
Yup, that will make things look cleaner and easier to understand.
Thanks,
Tom
>
> Just a thought.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists