[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56f022a2-e363-0524-68ba-c31950d96e0d@amd.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 13:06:50 -0500
From: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"Lendacky, Thomas" <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>
Cc: brijesh.singh@....com,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.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 09/06/2017 11:44 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 04:30:23PM +0000, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
>> Sorry for the top post, I'm on holiday and don't have access to a good
>> email client... I went with unsigned long to match all the page table
>> related declarations. If changing to u64 doesn't generate any warnings
>> or other issues them I'm good with that.
>
> Ok, no worries. Lemme run the smoke-tests on it and test it to see
> everything else still works.
>
I did the following quick run with your patch and everything seems to be
working okay
64-bit build:
-------
1) Baremetal SME *enabled* - System boots fine
a) 32-bit guest launch : successful (KVM HV)
b) 64-bit guest launch : successful (KVM HV)
c) 64-bit SEV guest launch : successful (KVM HV)
2) Baremetal SME *disabled* - System boots fine
a) 32-bit guest launch : successful (KVM HV)
b) 64-bit guest launch : successful (KVM HV)
c) 64-bit SEV guest launch : successful (KVM HV)
32-bit build
----------
I am installing 32-bit distro to verify 32-bit baremetal boot and will
report my findings soon.
-Brijesh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists