linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/CPU/AMD, mm: Extend with mem

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 2 Oct 2017 11:35:47 -0500
From:   Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
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 10/2/2017 8:51 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> 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?

Hmmm... strange, I haven't received that email or that part of the thread
for that matter - including Brijesh's reply.  I'll talk with Brijesh and
let him run with it.

Thanks,
Tom

>