[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180211190241.nzulvhhzkb74t72o@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 20:02:41 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Kai Huang <kai.huang@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 0/5] x86: Enumerate TME and PCONFIG, add MKTME_KEY_PROG
helper
* Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> Multikey Total Memory Encryption (MKTME)[1] is a technology that allows
> transparent memory encryption in upcoming Intel platforms.
>
> MKTME is built on top of TME. TME allows encryption of the entirety of
> system memory using a single key. MKTME allows to have multiple encryption
> domains, each having own key -- different memory pages can be encrypted
> with different keys.
>
> The patchset does some ground work for MKTME enabling:
> - Adds two new cpufeatures: TME and PCONFIG;
> - Detects if BIOS enabled TME and MKTME;
> - Enumerates what PCONFIG targets are supported;
> - Provides helper to program encryption keys into CPU;
>
> As part of TME enumeration we check out how many bits from physical address
> are claimed for encryption key ID. This may be critical as we or guest VM
> must not use these bits for physical address.
So how will the 'full' patchset look like, roughly - is there a tree or diffstat
we could take a look at perhaps?
I'm also wondering how 'TME' compares to AMD's SME (Secure Memory Encryption) and
SEV features. SME required a number of low level boot code changes - I'm wondering
how much commonality there can be achieved with Intel's TME so that we don't end
up with two sets of interfaces.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists