lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 15:51:51 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de> To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com> Cc: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/CPU/AMD, mm: Extend with mem_encrypt=sme option On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 08:44:21AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote: > I think we're talking about the same thing. You want sev_enabled to > indicate whether you can launch an SEV guest. We would still need an > sev_active variable to distinguish between SME and SEV during kernel > execution when the sme_me_mask is non-zero. Currently, the SEV feature > bit acts as "sev_enabled" and the sev_enabled variable acts as > "sev_active" in this scenario. See my last email about sev_host_enabled. Does that sound better? -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) --
Powered by blists - more mailing lists