[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170906092618.fkvzrqx32z6iqf2t@pd.tnic>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 11:26:18 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
Cc: thomas.lendacky@....com, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: SME/32-bit regression
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:45:07PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> It appears there is a regression for 32-bit kernels due to SME changes.
>
> I bisected my particular problem
It being? Doesn't boot, splats?
> (Xen PV guest) to
> 21729f81ce8ae76a6995681d40e16f7ce8075db4 but I also saw pmd_clear_bad()
> errors on baremetal. This seems to be caused by sme_me_mask being an
> unsigned long as opposed to phys_addr_t (the actual problem is that
> __PHYSICAL_MASK is truncated). When I declare it as u64 and drop unsigned
> long cast in __sme_set()/__sme_clr() the problem goes way. (This presumably
> won't work for non-PAE which I haven't tried).
Right, so I think we should do this because those macros should not have
any effect on !CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT setups.
---
diff --git a/include/linux/mem_encrypt.h b/include/linux/mem_encrypt.h
index 1255f09f5e42..823eec6ba951 100644
--- a/include/linux/mem_encrypt.h
+++ b/include/linux/mem_encrypt.h
@@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ static inline unsigned long sme_get_me_mask(void)
return sme_me_mask;
}
+#ifdef CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT
/*
* The __sme_set() and __sme_clr() macros are useful for adding or removing
* the encryption mask from a value (e.g. when dealing with pagetable
@@ -42,6 +43,10 @@ static inline unsigned long sme_get_me_mask(void)
*/
#define __sme_set(x) ((unsigned long)(x) | sme_me_mask)
#define __sme_clr(x) ((unsigned long)(x) & ~sme_me_mask)
+#else
+#define __sme_set(x) (x)
+#define __sme_clr(x) (x)
+#endif
#endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists