[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180214042121.tza3cpvrnpztjeme@node.shutemov.name>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 07:21:21 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Kai Huang <kai.huang@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: Decouple dynamic __PHYSICAL_MASK from AMD SME
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:10:22PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 2/8/2018 6:55 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > AMD SME claims one bit from physical address to indicate whether the
> > page is encrypted or not. To achieve that we clear out the bit from
> > __PHYSICAL_MASK.
>
> I was actually working on a suggestion by Linus to use one of the software
> page table bits to indicate encryption and translate that to the hardware
> bit when writing the actual page table entry. With that, __PHYSICAL_MASK
> would go back to its original definition.
But you would need to mask it on reading of pfn from page table entry,
right? I expect it to have more overhead than this one.
And software bits are valuable. Do we still have a spare one for this?
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists