[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1709061557180.1843@nanos>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 15:57:40 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, 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>
Subject: Re: SME/32-bit regression
On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 09/06/2017 05:26 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > 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 guest crashes very early, before a splat can can be generated.
>
> >
> >> (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.
>
> This won't help though if kernel is built with SME support.
Which is not the case for 32bit. SME depends on 64bit
Powered by blists - more mailing lists